We always have these fever dreams of flattening the organization, and 'AI will flatten organizations' is, in my view, executives speak for 'we think we can fire the people who remember why this place works.' Everyone romanticizes deleting middle management until they realize middle management was mostly absorbing the chaos from their [__] incompetent leadership.
Today's number: $42 million. That's how much the Met Gala raised for the Costume Institute last week, a new record. Ed, this is a true story. As you know, I was invited to the Met Gala and declined. But I was working on my costume and it came down to three finalists. The first was I was going to go in my underpants as a premature ejaculator and just say I came in my underwear. Or two... uh... I forget what the second one was.
Oh god. Claire, help me out. What I don't understand — I don't understand why you don't pick one. Like, you should pick one joke and commit.
Okay, Mr. [__] Easter Parade, life of the party. 'What a funny guy,' said no one ever, Edson. Yeah. Yeah. Ed, you might be tall, you might be handsome, you might be inordinately rich because you lucked out at a young age, but no, you're not known as that hoot-and-hollering Edson. Yeah. No, I'm sorry, Ed.
I own the humor part of this. Who won most comical in the ninth grade, Ed? Was it Edson? No, I don't think so. Who won Steve Martin in high school? That's right, Steve Martin.
I have to give you some news. My senior superlative in high school was class clown.
Got to drive. I'm not the hoot-and-hollerer.
I'm literally speechless. In your senior class, you were class clown. What happened?
What happened to me? I know exactly what happened. You ground me down. Something happened. I mean, okay. For me, it's divorce, bankruptcy, loss of my mother. The joy has been driven from my soul. What is your excuse?
Yeah. No, I don't have an excuse.
You were really most comical your senior year in high school.
Yeah. Class clown. I don't know if it means most comical, but that's what I got.
Wow. How was your Germany trip?
It's amazing. Every year I go to Hamburg. I speak at Online Marketing Rockstars. You couldn't be nicer. People are great. Again, see above: beer and sausage.
Yeah, the people are fun. They're so literal. You have to show ID to get into your hotel and I got picked up in all these crazy German cars and people are friendly and beer and did I mention the beer? Oh god, I just love it there. And I go running around the lake, wherever it is in Hamburg, they have this lake and I thought I was such a [__] baller running seven miles and then someone reminded me it's the little lake and it's three miles. I thought I was running seven miles in record time. So that's the only downside.
Three miles is still pretty good. I hate running. It is so boring.
There is that high you get from running, though.
Yeah, I know. I just... you clearly need to just keep on doing it and then achieve that high and then you're good. I've never experienced it. I try to like it, and I just can't do it.
You're 6'3. And how much do you weigh?
Almost exactly the same height and weight. Um...
That's good. That's good. The dog's in shape. So I'm happy to hear that.
Yeah. And what do you do? How often do you work out — every morning?
Weights, and then try to run once a week.
That's funny because you're not that muscular.
I know. I have the same problem as you.
When I see you with your shirt off, it's kind of a little pasty, a little soft. You kind of look like the Princeton version of that alien from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Most comical in high school.
That was good. Should we get to the news? I can't do any better than that.
Let's do it. That's pretty good. We'll start. By the way, I just note that we are three weeks out from the Prof G Markets tour, which is kicking off with a sold-out show in San Francisco on May 27th, but we have tickets still available in LA, Miami, Chicago, and we are finishing things off in New York City with special guest Anthony Scaramucci — the Mooch, the man, the myth, the legend. So if you want to come see him and see Scott and see me, go visit profgmarketstour.com to get your tickets. Now, I personally can't wait for more guests to come, but the Mooch — I mean, no better guest for New York. That is ideal.
Yeah. So we're working on a really great guest in Los Angeles that rhymes with... but I don't want to tease it until it's confirmed. And also, by the time this show airs, New York will be sold out. I think in New York we have like a 1,200-seat auditorium there, and I think there were like 40 tickets left. So folks, we will sell out. So please buy your tickets now. And it's really shaping up nicely. We got some really good and controversial guests. I'm super excited.
It's going to be very fun. Let's get into our story. We got a lot to talk about. If you haven't already, please subscribe to our Prof G Markets YouTube channel and click the bell to get our latest episodes.
The conversation around AI and jobs is evolving. It's no longer just about AI replacing individual workers. More companies are starting to suggest that it could eliminate layers of management as well. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong announced plans to cut roughly 14% of staff last week, citing both market volatility and the speed at which AI is reshaping the business. PayPal made a similar move, saying it plans to reduce its workforce by 20% over the next two to three years because of AI. And perhaps the clearest expression of this new thinking came from Jack Dorsey, who said, quote, 'Most companies using AI today are giving everyone a co-pilot, which makes the existing structure work slightly better without changing it. We're after something different. A company built as an intelligence with no need for a permanent middle management layer.' So Scott, there's kind of a lot to this story here. Obviously, we've got the layoffs. Coinbase laying off 14% of the staff. That's 700 employees. PayPal saying they're going to lay off a fifth. We've had other announcements of layoffs. Freshworks laid off 11% of the staff. Block, which is Jack Dorsey's company, they laid off 40% of the staff. That was 4,000 employees. They did that before we saw these layoffs. Now, there are questions over why are these layoffs actually happening? Is it AI washing, as we've discussed? Is it actually the AI? Are they actually enabling their AI? But I think what is interesting is that we are now seeing a new thesis in the AI economy, which is that AI isn't just going to replace workers, but it's going to replace managers. That is what Brian Armstrong said in his letter, which we can get into, to employees. He wants to cut out middle management, and that is exactly what Jack Dorsey has described too. Let's just listen to a short clip of Jack Dorsey explaining this, and then let's get your reactions.
One measurement of how far along we are would be the depth from me to any other individual in the company. And I would say our max depth right now is probably five. Folks between me and anyone in the company, I would want to get that down to two to three this year. And in the most ideal case, there is no layer. Everyone in the company reports to me.
That is the vision with AI. No layers, no middle management. Everything just goes directly to the CEO, assisted and enabled by AI. Scott, what do you make of this trend? Do you think it's going to happen?
Well, keep in mind Jack Dorsey is the person that put out the following tweet: 'Bitcoin will save humanity.' That's an actual tweet, and he believes it. He believed it. Look, we always have these fever dreams of flattening the organization, and 'AI will flatten organizations' is, in my view, executives speak for 'we think we can fire the people who remember why this place works.' Everyone romanticizes deleting middle management until they realize middle management was mostly absorbing the chaos from their [__] incompetent leadership.
The only way an organization scales is if you have reporting relationships and metrics and cultural norms that are enforced by people with some maturity and seasoning. And I hate to tell you this, folks, this is management. As a company grows and there's more and more layers, is it a healthy thing to take out people? And in the 1980s, this started with a book called Reengineering. And basically these guys wrote a book saying America, because of its monopoly power and manufacturing, had grown just fat and happy and never went through the culling of the organization. And what they did was basically every Fortune 500 company laid off anyone with a VP in their title, and they found out that they really didn't miss them and they juiced their earnings. My father basically got reengineered out of work by the time he was 53 and kind of never recovered, and that created additional strain on our relationship, and he never really found the confidence to apologize for abandoning me. But anyways — most comical in high school, dealing with the pain, Ed, dealing with the pain. I couldn't cry, so I made others laugh. But anyways —
There's always a fever dream of flattening the organization. Now, there's something to the notion that everyone does their work. So let me just use Prof G. I do work. You do work. Even the person who manages the company, Katherine Dylan, she does a lot of actual work, and it makes her a better manager. I'm all for the player-coach. But people who are growing their careers, especially young people, need mentorship. They need reviews. They need feedback. People value compensation. Economic compensation is great. When I was at Morgan Stanley, I went in for my review once a year and it was a number. No feedback — not 'this is where you're good, this is where you're bad, this is where you need to improve. We're giving you 60% of your salary in bonus. Let's go get drinks.' That was the feedback. And I find that thoughtful feedback — and I've gotten better at this as I've gotten older — when someone does something especially strong or whether I think they need to improve, I go 'memo to the file,' and then in the review we talk about it. Young people — not even young people, everyone — really appreciates feedback.
And the idea that when we review you and Claire and bring you in and just have the AI review you and then decide your bonus — what horseshit. I mean, the funniest thing about this is this is billionaires describing this as empowerment while simultaneously installing surveillance software and demanding 24/7 output from the three remaining employees. A lot of companies going through this, my prediction, are about to discover that institutional memory was not inefficiency — it was the [__] company. So the connective tissue oftentimes is management. Does that mean there aren't cases where it becomes fat, inefficient, and management begins to actually add negative value? Yes. In my opinion, the greatest example of this, hands down, is academia.
What you have in academia is tenure — faculty become unproductive about the time they get tenure and you can't fire them. Universities actually have to put millions of dollars aside in an escrow account because they acknowledge this person is about to become very unproductive. The problem is because we have been able to really effectively sequester supply or artificially constrain supply, we've been able to raise tuition faster than inflation, and universities have become so fat. MIT has 16 people working at MIT for everyone who actually teaches. But in the private sector, I mean, there's a bit of a healthy cycle around going through and trying to flatten the organization, make sure everyone's doing their job. There's more transparency, there's less bureaucracy, there's more speed or reducing time to market. I get it. But somehow the notion that you're going to work for an AI and then it's going to reduce the management or leadership or guidance or mentoring or giving people their compensation or solving problems in HR — I just... So anyways, my point is this is yet again another example of these guys who overhired who are looking for a way to juice their valuation and thinking big thoughts about AI. Can AI supplement management? I'm sure it can. But I actually think this is one place where AI is absolutely not going to live up to the hype.
So that's a really interesting point, and I agree. And you know, we should recognize that the stock market hit another record high last week, and the reason that it hit another record high is because of AI. It's because of these chip stocks which are absolutely ripping right now. AMD, Samsung, Intel, Micron, Seagate, SanDisk, which as we've discussed is up 4,000% in the past year. And you know, you think about the supply chain going downstream. Why do we need these chips and why do we need this memory infrastructure? We need it for the data centers. Why do we need the data centers? To power the AI. Why do we need the AI? And it appears that increasingly among large tech companies, large generally speaking white-collar organizations, we're seeing that there is a goal in mind, which is for AI to replace management, to replace all middle management, to get rid of all of the grunt work that you have to do in terms of managing people and trim all of that fat. And I just want to go back to Brian Armstrong's letter because he really articulated his vision, I think, quite well. And I think that it is indicative of where a lot of these CEOs are trying to take their businesses. So in terms of why he did it, what he's trying to achieve, he said, quote, 'We are not just reducing headcount and cutting costs. We're fundamentally changing how we operate, rebuilding Coinbase as an intelligence with humans around the edge aligning it.' So in other words, the whole thing is AI and the humans are just there to kind of shepherd the AI in the right direction. He says, 'We want fewer layers, faster decisions, no pure managers, AI-native pods. We will be concentrating around AI-native talent who can manage fleets of agents to drive outsized impact. We will also have one-person teams with engineers, designers, and product managers all in one role.' And this idea of the one-person team is also very popular right now. I've heard Dario Amodei talk about it. Sam Altman has talked about it. Sam Altman is very obsessed with the idea of a one-person billion-dollar company. Can one person operate a billion-dollar startup? Is that possible? And the idea is that you'll have one person managing the agents who will do everything for you. The AI is going to completely transform the business. You're saying that's probably not going to happen. And I think I agree with you. The idea of you walk into your performance review, which is a big part of what it means to be at an organization and be at a company, and an AI shows up and evaluates you on all these different metrics, and you disagree with the AI for various reasons, and you try to prompt it, and either it vigorously agrees with you because it's just a sycophantic technology, or it doesn't make any sense, or it has the wrong data, etc., etc. That to me is just never going to happen. But it seems to be increasingly the basis on which this entire stock market is kind of rallying behind. And I'm just not sure it's going to work. I can get behind the idea of AI doing menial tasks. But the idea of managing people, the idea that an AI would be the core of a business and the humans are around it, which is becoming very popular, I'm just not sure about it. And I wonder if it does mean that we're seeing too much hype here.
My last year before I sold the company at L2, I took someone into a conference room and I said, 'It's obvious to me you have a substance abuse problem. What's going on?' And within 10 minutes, I found out this person had tried to take their life twice in the last three months. You're supposed to go to [__] Claude for that. I mean, and AI takes you to the average of everything that's been out there. You think Claude's going to come up with breakthrough products that are just so [__] crazy they end up being crazy genius? But we're mammals. And the other thing this indicates is that these guys are so nihilistic and so void of any real [__] emotion. I get the notion of wanting to be more profitable with fewer people. I'm in a services company. We're in a services company. The expenses go home in the elevator every night or go home to Brooklyn Park or leave their basement. Whatever it is you guys do. I have no idea. I heard we have an office in Brooklyn. I'm never coming. Anyways, I heard there's a cardboard cutout of me there, which makes me happy.
We go to the cutout for our reviews.
Anyways, I get it. We're about to launch our eighth podcast, and I've challenged the team: we're not going to have any incremental hires. Use AI and technology to figure out how we all become more productive and launch another podcast. Fine. I get it. But the notion, the fever dream of no one managing you in one-person teams — when I was in Hamburg, as is always the case, when I'm alone, I got upgraded to this beautiful room with a deck, and it was a spectacular sunset, and I'm overlooking the lake, and it's as if it didn't happen because no one is with me to share it. It just doesn't matter. There's nothing. And the idea that you're going to find purpose and motivation in work without sharing it with a team — I mean, you're building something, you're building a business within a business with Prof G Markets, and it's fun to build it with Claire. And if you were just in your apartment in Brooklyn building a nice little business called Prof G Markets and you didn't have fans and you weren't going on a live tour and I wasn't giving you a hard time and you weren't high-fiving Claire virtually and in person and getting together at all hands and at some point reviewing people and giving them their bonuses — it's like you've literally sucked the soul and the humanity out of what it means to work. And that is all right. Yeah, we do it for economic prosperity. Sure, we do it to create shareholder value. But I think the biggest part of the shooting match of work is you have the opportunity to build something with someone else. It all comes back to a very basic thing. I think the most rewarding thing in life is relationships, and the things that fuse relationships are building things together. You have experiences together. You achieve things together. Maybe you raise kids that aren't horrible together. You build a business. The most rewarding businesses I've had, hands down, I have a core set of like technically co-founders, and we build something together. So the idea, their fever dream of like they all want a singularity where one of them controls everything and gets 100% of all revenue and all profits by distilling all economic value to no human but them — they're the one. And there is a certain nihilism in it all.
And there is something to be said of — and there's a balance here. In my companies, I'm doing some virtue signaling right now. I've always said there should be two or three people, and I've always had small companies, right? They start at zero. Once we have someone in HR or a CFO, I either step down from the CEO role or become the chairman because I don't have those skills to scale a company and I don't want to deal with that stuff. But until then, I've always said we should have two or three people that are one or two bad decisions away from living in their car. They have bad judgment. They do stupid [__] all the time. There's no way they're leaving us for Google. Let me put it that way. A little bit down on their luck, maybe. And guess what? The business can be a great means of a little bit of social good. And also the notion — this is basically the notion that part of an organization, if you think of stakeholders — and I didn't get this. So I always thought my goal was to pay people less than market and figure out other tricks of the trade to get them to stay and retain them. And then what you realize as you get older is that what is more rewarding is to build a profitable company and slightly overpay people. And if there's some fat in the organization and if there's a few people who quite frankly are not going to get a job anywhere else but work hard or good people and maybe they're not amazing — okay, that's okay too. And in some countries, the objective of a lot of the owners is to increase employment. Now, you have to balance that with making sure the organization can survive and has profitability.
But this is again this singular messiah complex that is nothing. There's only one stakeholder, and it's shareholders. And I can figure out technology to replace people, and we can all work singularly, and then eventually the AI will take out those singular teams and replace them, and then there will just be one. It'll be Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk who each own 49% of the world and do a lot of ketamine, and if they're good enough they will provide UBI for all of us such that we don't rise up and kill them. I'm not a fan, Ed. I'm not a fan of this whole line of thinking. I think it's [__] and I think it's unhealthy and I think it's nihilistic. And it's creepy the extent to which they are glorifying this thing. They are very excited about this notion of the one-person company. It's like the dream if they can do that.
And to your point, it's like I don't think that the one-person, one-billion-dollar company is going to happen. And I don't think that's not going to happen because it can't happen. I think it won't happen because people don't want it to happen. Like, you don't want to create this billion-dollar company and then you didn't share it with anyone. You're going to celebrate your success with your AI agents and Claude and ChatGPT? Like, it's just depressing. It goes back to that crazy quote that we saw from Sam Altman where he said that AI consumes less energy than human beings and children. It's like you've got the entire system wrong. You don't understand what the point of any of this is. And to go back to your point about like we're heading towards a place where Elon Musk owns half of world GDP — I mean, I would just point out John D. Rockefeller was the richest American in history. Everyone agrees it. He's supposed to be the guy, the richest guy ever. His net worth was about 1.5% of US GDP. If the SpaceX IPO goes to plan, Elon is going to be worth closer to 3.5% of GDP. So he'll be more than double as rich as the richest American ever. So Elon is now the richest American in history, and by a huge, huge margin, and it is getting to a point where it is quite scary, and it is downstream of this glorification of how much value can we accrete into the hands of a smaller and smaller set of people, and they're literally glorifying let's do it into one person's hands. One person's going to create all of this. It's just strange. It's a strange thing to be so excited about.
We'll be right back after the break. And by the way, we are heading out on tour at the end of the month. So if you want to get a ticket to a show near you, head to profgmarketstour.com.
Support for the show comes from DeleteMe. DeleteMe makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Digital privacy isn't just a concern for those with a high profile. The truth is that even private citizens are at risk, and we should all be thinking about how to keep our personal data safe, as well as our families'. The experts at DeleteMe can do the heavy lifting to protect your online privacy. They can do the tedious work of hunting down your personal information on data brokers and search sites that look for people and meticulously work to remove it. Our producer, Jennifer, tried DeleteMe. Jennifer, this is personal experience.
I've really enjoyed DeleteMe. I think what stood out is the ongoing support. I still get regular reports showing where my data is showing up, and they handle everything. I don't even have to think about it.
Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/profg and use promo code PROFG at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com/profg and enter code PROFG at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com/profg, code PROFG.
Support for the show comes from Hims. If you want to know what's really worth your time when it comes to losing weight, skip the guesswork and get weight loss by Hims. Hims offers access to an affordable range of FDA-approved GLP-1 medications that now include the Wegovy pill and the Wegovy pen, plus lifestyle tips to support you along the way. With Wegovy at Hims, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight combined with diet and exercise. It helps you regulate your appetite and eat less, so success is within reach. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.com/markets to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. That's hims.com/markets. hims.com/markets. Weight loss by Hims is not available in all 50 states. Wegovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. To get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wegovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit hims.com.
We're back with Prof G Markets. The wealth tax debate is escalating and it is increasingly becoming a mainstream political issue. Billionaire investor and Citadel CEO Ken Griffin is now publicly feuding with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani over a proposed pied-à-terre tax. Meanwhile, Governor Hochul recently unveiled a $268 billion budget deal that includes a new tax on multi-million-dollar second homes in New York City. And in California, a proposed wealth tax on billionaires has officially qualified for the November ballot after supporters gathered more than 1.5 million signatures. That was well above the 875,000 signatures that they needed to qualify for the ballot. So now voters in California will weigh in on whether or not states should tax wealth. So Scott, we have been talking about this for a while. I think we've been having quite nuanced conversations on the wealth tax debate. I think our perspective is the right one, which is that you do need to figure out how to redistribute the wealth, but this probably isn't the best way to do it. There are other alternatives, but now it is becoming a mainstream political issue. It's starting to sort of dominate the cultural conversation. And then we saw this proposal from Mamdani where he wants to tax pied-à-terre, i.e., second homes in New York City that are worth more than $5 million whose owners don't live in the city full-time, which I think is actually a great idea. And then he puts out this clip that announces that, and it's a little controversial. We hear the response from Ken Griffin. Let's just listen to the clip as well as Ken Griffin's response, and then let's get your reaction.
Thrilled to announce we've secured a pied-à-terre tax, the first in New York's history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million whose owners do not live full-time in the city. Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million.
What really upset me about the video was the fact that he put me in harm's way. You know, he seems to have forgotten that the CEO of another American company was assassinated just blocks from where I live in New York. And to put any citizen in harm's way is just inappropriate for one of our political leaders.
I have a lot of thoughts on this. And by the way, if you're new to the show, just let me clue you in on the major theme of the show, and that is this is an opportunity for Scott and Ed to talk about what?
I forgot. How could I forget?
How could you forget? All right, so let's bring this back to me.
I did the math with this tax. This tax, if it goes through, because I am a Florida resident and because I split time between London and Florida and don't spend that much time anymore in New York — but if this tax goes through, because I qualify, it's a pied-à-terre, it will cost me $100,000 a year in addition to the — I don't have a mortgage on it, but in addition to the taxes, HOA fees, all the current — an incremental $100,000 in carried costs. It's a form of a wealth tax if you think about it, because if my place were $10 million, it costs another $100,000 a year, say a cap rate or return of 6 or 7%. That means kind of overnight, technically, the place goes from being worth $10 million to $8.5 million, right? So that's real cabbage. Having said that, having said that, I am in favor of this tax. And that is, look, you can always talk about how a government needs to cut costs. I've read the articles that it costs 12 times more per mile to build a subway in New York versus Paris. I get it. I don't doubt there's fat to be cut, and I trust they're going to try to do that. I'm not in a position — I don't have the domain expertise to start talking about the cuts that the mayor should make.
But we think that they should be efficient with their spending, as everyone does. I mean, the idea when we get caricatured, it's like, oh, you just want government bloat. Obviously not. Obviously we want spending to be efficient.
I'm going to assume they do a reasonable job of allocating capital. That may be right. It may be wrong. I don't want to have that argument right now. So I'm going to assume they do a reasonable job of managing the city's expenses. Okay. So let's go to the tax.
It's pretty clear that if there's any group in America that is not paying their fair share and can best afford an incremental tax, that new taxes would decrease their well-being, happiness, and health the least, it is the very, very wealthy. And if you have a second home in Manhattan, not your primary residence, but your second home, the chances that you are very, very wealthy are very high. Now, they have other options. They could tax corporations, which is the Democrats' favorite boogeyman. But here's the bottom line. JP Morgan has gone from 30,000 people in New York to 20,000 over the last 10 years, and gone from 10,000 to 30,000 in Texas. Because at some point corporations will leave, or start — the easiest people to fire are the ones you haven't hired — and they'll start hiring more in Florida and in Texas. And by the way, folks, JP Morgan is just not the guy running M&A making $7 million a year. It's a ton of assistants, people working in the kitchen, people cleaning the place, people in low-level compliance jobs, people in mid-level administrative jobs making $80,000, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000 a year that are one of the six or seven million people that migrate into Manhattan from Gowanus or Queens or New Jersey that aren't ballers. And if JP Morgan and the biggest companies in the world, the biggest, most important companies in the world, at some point they will leave. And quite frankly, a lot of them have already left. So I'd be very careful with corporate taxes.
Well, let's increase taxes in general, right? It's already 12 or 13% incremental tax if you're in New York making over a certain amount of money. At some point, the earners, the ballers who are making a lot of money or what feels like a lot of money think, you know what, I'm going to peace out to Florida, and it's already happening. So what do you want? You want a tax that raises money that quite frankly probably doesn't drive people out of the city. And I'm only speaking for one person, but I think it's indicative of probably how most people will behave. If it costs me another $100,000 to have a second home in New York, I don't love it. I'm bummed about it. But here's the bottom line. If I can go to Jack's wife Freda and watch the freak show and all the hot men and women and the world pass me by, and then I can go out for the best food in the world and go to Equinox and walk around and see the absolute wondrous freak show that is New York — [__] A. I'm not going anywhere. It is the most amazing experiment, the best example, the pinnacle of America, the pinnacle of capitalism, the greatest collision of culture, commerce, creativity in general, aggressiveness, commerce, fashion, art, media. $100,000 — don't get Mamdani, don't get any ideas. People who own second homes there will spend a lot more than that to stay and be witness to that amazing experiment. I think no one likes taxes. I hate this tax less than any other idea. In some, I'm in favor of this tax.
It's so funny to hear the argument where people say, 'Well, if you do that, all of them are going to leave.' And it's like, they already — well, sorry, but they already left. It's their second home that we're talking about. So that — but they're gone already, is my point.
That's a great second home. They left already. I love that. That's the perfect — if you're figuring out ways, like, they already left.
