What to make of the recent COVID uptick? Bloomberg Opinion editor Brooke Sample talks about the possible responses to the recent rebound. Columnists Kathryn Edwards and Lisa Jarvis also join us, discussing childcare costs as well as alcohol consumption> We also explore the expensive office lunch with Allison Schrager. Amy Morris hosts.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast count US Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome the Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we look at childcare, a consistent issue for working parents, but it's about to get much, much worse, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. We're also seeing new numbers that show more women in the US are dying from alcohol. Those numbers are alarmingly high and a sure fire way to lure your employees back to the office. Feed them, but not just any meals, and not in the office or at their desks. But we begin with the latest on COVID and how the world maybe should respond to this latest uptick. Take New York, for example, where earlier this month the summer surge prompted New York health officials to warn the public about an uptick in COVID cases. New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Wassan says it's not unexpected, but everyone does need to be aware.
It's been a while since New Yorkers were getting vaccinated and boosted on mass immunity is waning.
Science is working to keep up, though the FDA recently approved a formula for another booster that is expected to protect against the new dominant strain. Plus RSV and the flu are also close behind, so getting the right message to vulnerable populations may be key this fall. Let's bring in Bloomberg Opinion editor Brooks Sample brook. First, we want to explain your role here. You put together a digest of the top Bloomberg Opinion columns and you put them together in a newsletter that's available every week, totally worth signing up for. And this angle on COVID is actually included in the Theme of the Week newsletter. So before we jump into the COVID part of it, tell us about this newsletter really quick and your role there.
Hi.
So on the weekends, on Saturdays, we do Bloomberg Opinion's most popular columns, a bit of a roundup and a little bit about some of the podcasts and other things that we have been taken throughout the week. And then on Sundays is our Theme of the Week, where we pick one of our best topics from the week. Things that we're starting to talk about more in depth. So you know a lot of times it's based on the news, such as an election or as in this case, you know COVID, which is starting to hit our headlines again. So we go back through the week and hit our columnists that are very smart analysts who are looking at COVID the numbers, and we decided, well, that's our theme for this week.
All right, Well, knowing all of that about the newsletter, let's get into the topic, which is COVID. You said that you've been seeing it pop up more in the headlines here at Bloomberg. What is the prognosis for another COVID surge? What do we need to watch for?
So a lot of analysts have been looking over the past year at wastewater numbers, and you can see epidemiologists have been noticing, especially in New York City, which is very good at tracking viruses that it finds in wastewater. So people have been paying attention to that. And while we don't get the data that we got the first couple of years of COVID, there are more hospitalizations happening right now. They are happening more among children, and what our experts Lisa Jarvis and Fay Lamb are noticing, is you know, on top of the fact that you know RSV and flu came back later in the epidemic. You know, it disappeared the first year because we were so focused on COVID and because we were isolated, that helped keep those two extra viruses at bay. Well now they're back. And last year, as Faan Lisa pointed out, the message from public health officials was not always clear, so people kind of I wouldn't say gave up, but it was easier to not do anything and not get your shots. So vaccine uptake last year was not that great, especially when you were thrown Well then you should be aware of RSV. You don't forget your flu shot? Okay, when am I supposed to do all these things? There are so many rules and that exhausted people. It is surging again. It's this new variant Heiress. But thankfully it seems that the prognis was for that. It's not any more dangerous than previous variants. And what public health officials need to worry about is getting a more lucid message out there to people so that people will listen.
Well, that's what I wanted to ask about. Also, you would mention fay Flam's column and the lack of control over the pandemic. You mentioned that the newsletter as well. Is that what you're referring to is that the messaging is just off.
The messaging is off, absolutely, and you know, and that's not necessarily, you know, anybody's fault. You know, this is still it is a novel virus and we're only a few years into this. We don't know, we're still learning about you know what you know about things about long COVID, you know, when to get these vaccines, just how effective are the vaccines. And the whole point was always to mitigate when people did get sick, which, of course, you know, lots of people say, oh, well, you're not supposed to get it. No, it's supposed to mitigate when you do get it, things like isolation that was meant to not path spread it around to the vulnerable populations. So that message needs to be a little bit clearer, it needs to get to people more effectively. Uh. And that's you know, it's it's all about making things simpler.
Now, Brooke, reiterate for us, if you don't mind, When should we be getting our next COVID booster.
When you can. That is the simple message. Get your vaccines, get your boosters, your flu. The RSP is a new vaccine this year, Get them when you can.
Is there a risk of getting it too early and then the effect wearing off?
Some people say that, But that is mostly the fear, you know, especially you know we are more in a more anti vaxx era, so which you know that those voices are, you know, they're definitely loud. But doctor say, get your shots when you can.
Okay, all right, well taken. There are those who believe that COVID is really essentially over. You don't see a whole lot of people walking around in masks anymore. Every so often, either a grocery store or some other public event or venue, you might see some folks in masks. But once people stopped masking up, it seems like it was going to be really hard to get them to start masking up again. Is that a challenge that we're going to be looking at this winter and follow Are we past that?
I My personal feeling is that, you know, we might be we might have already passed that point. Now, it's funny you mentioned that I was out, like for somebody who isolated very very carefully, you know. The first couple of years, I was at Radio City Music Hall over the weekend, and obviously most people weren't masked, but I saw a lot more masks than I expected. So I think I can't tell if that's simply a New York thing. Uh, you know, certainly in you know, the more Midwest states. You know, I'm not You're not going to see that. People just are They're done with it. So you know, obviously a mask is always good, but I don't I think we're past that. People are tired of it, so you know, that's what makes the vaccines more important.
Well, I wanted to follow up with that. I love it when the guest anticipates my question because everyone is sick of it, even those who believe in the boosters and don't have a problem masking, but we're all so tired of it. Pandemic pandemic fatigue is real.
It is real.
So what's the guidance? How do we get around that?
You know, I it's it's it can be really hard when we are just bombarded with information, you know, on a daily basis, you know, not just cable news, not you know, not just Twitter, which is you know, takes a weird turn every other day, not just you know, Facebook or threads or wherever. You know, we are bombarded and it's really hard to figure out where the reasonable and right voices are when you have so much misinformation out there. So you know, and I you know as a media person that this is you know, maybe not my favorite thing to say, but you know, you know, but go on a media diet, figure out which foods, which sources are good for you. You know, which are actual, meaningful, data based voices. You know, obviously you know Bloomberg's whole thing.
We are data.
That is you know what we do. We're not going to be pushing anything that doesn't have the numbers behind it. So you know, that's why you know, Lisa and Fay are so important because they use data and and even then you know, they they see just how tired we are. So that's why you know, they say, simple, simple messaging. You know, that's what we need. We don't need, you know, the CDC telling us one thing one day and then oh they got new information, now they tell us another thing. That's the only thing the CDC is doing They're dealing with data as it comes, so that can be hard. So take a deep breath, get the simple message, get your vaccine when you can, and realize COVID is not over. You know, we are going to be with it forever.
I wanted to ask where the CDC is with this. You may have just answered that that they're going to be giving you messages as they get the data. Are we anticipating fresh messages coming up in the fall?
I would imagine so, especially with the triple deemic, which is.
Triple demic sounds wait, hold, let me just stop you for a second. That sounds so dag scary. But I know what you mean. You're talking about the flu, RSV and COVID, but it does sound really intimidating.
And it is, especially when you know my son and I each got the flu last year and I managed to get COVID for a third time last year, and it's like, well, you know, I'm just physically exhausted. So I have learned. I'm getting it as soon as it comes out this year.
Bloomberg Opinion editor Brooks Sample. You can sign up for that newsletter, by the way, at Bloomberg dot com. Slash Opinion. Now coming up, we'll look at a perennial problem for working parents, available affordable childcare. They just could be coming. Got a heads up for you. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
You're listening the Bloomberg Opinion. I'm maybe Morris and as summer comes to an end, summer camp is also ending. Parents are now on the hunt for more childcare arrangements. This has always been a challenge. This is nothing new, but things may be about to get much worse. Bloomberg Opinion columnist and labor economist Katherine Edwards joins us Now and Catherine, you have referred to this in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal as an economic calamity that is approaching. How bad can this get?
We don't know because we've never done this before. During the pandemic, a lot of industries were in trouble because of the unique concerns of the pandemic, and so we helped them, right.
We helped the.
Shipping and logistics industry. We helped the airline industry. We also helped the childcare industry. And unlike say airlines were shipping, the childcare industry was not functioning well before the pandemic began. It has been a failure of a business model and market failure for a long time. And so the government came in to help prop up this industry. And those funds are about to run dry, and all of the problems that were there before it started are still there. So the economic calamity that I'm referring to is that on September thirtieth, the final remaining American Rescue Plan funds that have been propping up the childcare sector are expiring. It has reached over eighty percent of providers and nearly ten million children, And it's a figot. It's turning off.
Do they want it to turn off? I mean, are they trying to save money? Are they saying, Okay, let's go back to the way things were happening.
It's hard to pinpoint where the lack of collective action in Congress comes from over the past two decades. What's remarkable to me is that you know, many governors. The way that this money was distributed is the American Rescue Plan gave grants to states to spend in their states. Right, and so here here's a bunch of money from the federal government.
You know where in your local.
Economy, which areas need these funds. They've been distributed in all kinds of ways to all kinds of providers. So for a childcare center, the average amount of money that they got was one hundred and forty thousand dollars. Right, it's not necessarily a small amount of money for a center based care. Those governors have in turned gone back to Congress and said, we need more money. This money is propping up our economy. This money is a good investment. We want additional funds to support childcare in our states. I have I know that certain members of Congress are interested. I have not seen anything like, you know, a bill or movement or a plan. Certain legislators have put forward various kind of proposals, but we're not talking about it on the news every night.
I thought maybe the hang up would be on the state end of it, Like maybe you have some red state Republicans who maybe don't want to dip back into that pot. But it sounds like from what you're saying, pretty much any governor who is able to benefit from this is saying, yeah, we need the help, and the hang up is on the federal level.
I don't think so.
I think the hang up is on the I think it's a red blue hang up because I'm not sure how many Republican governors have asked. I would have to check. Here's where talking past each other works, right, And this is why this policy is not moving forward. You have economists and child development experts saying this is an absolute when investment. It's helping families at the very start of their kind of life. Invest in children, put them into early childhood education, help them get ready for school, help with preschool exposure, give them things like a constant diet that would help families who are struggling with food and security, and put them into childcare centers to get them ready for preschool.
This has really long dividends for the children.
At the same time, it also if you have free childcare, it frees up the parents to have basically whatever labor market activity they want. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less, but it's often that women want to work more.
That has huge.
Dividends in the economy because you're adding workers, so you're investing in the next generation, You're investing in the current workforce, you're investing in the labor supply.
All of this is good.
The other side comes back with, you want the government to raise our children. And every time I've written about childcare, every time I've spoken about childcare, every time that I have talked about the economic dividends to childcare investment, someone says to me, you want the government to raise our children.
How do you argue back against that. That's such a blanket statement.
Well, I would say that it's wholly inaccurate, although of course I never say it quite appointedly to people's faces, because I'm, you know, a proper Southern girl.
I we try to be polite.
Sure, What I say to people is that the vast majority of women of mothers are working even when they have children under six. This is not something that the government has decided parents should do. It's something that parents have told the government they.
Want to do.
The majority of children are in childcare before they start school. That means the majority of parents want to put their kids into a childcare center. So what you're saying is that, you know, parents make this decision that doesn't matter if the government helps them. That means the government's controlling them. So I kind of go back to it's on parents to decide. If there's free childcare, you don't have to go, but if there's inaffordable, if there's unaffordable child care, you can't go. So you're you're letting a market failure make a decision for families rather than having family and enabling families to make the decision themselves.
How did families manage this before the pandemic? Can't they just go back to what they were doing before all these funds were flowing.
Childcare industry lost about a third of its workforce at the start of the pandemic and it has still not recovered it. So even if we just told families, you know, go back to what you were doing, there would be families who would lose childcare. And in the same time, many of these businesses were going to close because they did not have sustainable income that were kept open in part because of these federal funds. So families before the pandemic, you know, they did what families have been doing for decades. When it comes to childcare, they either you choose not to have it because they can't afford it, they work less, and they have fewer children. I mean, the relationship between childcare investments have two very clear outcomes, which is that one it increases fertility and people have more children when they can afford more children. And two, it helps women go to work they want to work. I mean, there's not like there's going to be a government agent at the childcare drop off saying, oh, I see you dropped off little Johnny. Now get to your job. I mean, it's still your choice about what you do.
This is America.
You could choose to drop off your kids and go to work, choose to drop off your kids and not go to work. What we don't have now is a choice for families that enables them to do what it is they want to do, because right now the market is deciding who gets childcare, and it's people who are high income in urban centers.
Parents being inconvenienced is one thing, and parents not having a choice is another. But your column takes us beyond the household into the labor market. What this could portend as more people lose that option of childcare, with.
The caveat that the government has never supported this industry so much. Therefore, the government's never taken this much help away at the really seeing it coming. The estimates are that it could be around three million spots that are lost in the economy because centers have to close. Now there are centers that remain open. About half of them reported that they would immediately raise prices, and then kind of the other half have said something like cut staff, wages or benefits, which which could lose both of those could could lead to reduced spots because you have staffing issues, or reduce spots because fewer people can afford them. So it's there's no good version of what happens after we cut off these funds. It's just some version of bad. Maybe it's the bad that we already have to a lesser degree. Maybe it's you know, three million parents leaving the workforce in the month of October. Maybe it's a diffuse effect that takes six months to find out. I'm kind of the notion that, you know, we're not going to feel it. You know, it's not going to be a bang, it's going to be a whimper. Right that it's that instead of having three million people walk off the job at the start of October, we're just we're going to lose parents in every industry, in every occupation, in every state, in every locality, and we'll lose them in such a diffuse way that we won't really see that they're gone. We'll just feel the same type of pressure points that we felt in the tight labor market of the past two years.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist and labor economist Catherine Edwards joining us now. Don't forget We're available as a podcast on Apple Spotify, are your favorite podcast platform, and coming up. Death by alcohol impacting more women more than ever before, more women dying from alcohol. We're gonna look at what's going on. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. New data show that more US women are dying from alcohol than ever before. Part of the problem pushing that boozy woman's rose all day lifestyle, and when you compare the numbers between women and men, you might be surprised at what you find. Let's get details now from Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis. She covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry, and she's been looking into this. Lisa, tell us about how women are dying from alcohol. Are you talking about liver damage, alcohol poisoning, drunk driving? Like, what is the study telling you?
Yeah, it's all of those things.
So it's liver damage and alcohol related accidents, you know, So it kind of covers the gamut. But what we're seeing is that, especially when it comes to midlife, that women in their thirties and forties in particular are drinking more and it's having real consequences. That there used to be a fairly substantial gap between kind of problematic drinking men and women, and that gap is narrowing.
Let's get into that when you do compare women who drink to men who drink. When you say the gap is narrowing, what are the numbers? What are you seeing?
Right?
So, especially during the pandemic, we saw precipitous rise and alcohol related deaths among women between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty, deaths among women went up fifteen percent per year each across those three years.
Men pass a lot.
Hold, let's not go past that fifteen percent higher year to year.
Yeah, that's a lot, I mean, I think, and later, I'm sure we'll unpack some of the reasons that that might be happening. But you know, deaths among men were rising too. Everybody was drinking more, people were having a tough time. But it does just seem like women are catching up essentially to men's patterns, which is not completely unexpected.
You know. One of the things that's happening is that as we.
Have more income equality, as we have more equality and education, women are catching up in other ways.
Is to other ways to which includes drinking habits.
Well, Lisa, is this something that we can lay at the doorstep of the pandemic one more thing we can blame the pandemic for? Or are there some other issues here too?
Oh, there's definitely more to it that we're not seeing.
It's been an ongoing pattern that kind of accelerated during the pandemic when it came to deaths. But you know, I think one researcher I spoke to said, really, what we're looking at is women who are highly educated. And if you look at she looked at two different cohorts of women from you know, decades ago to women more recently, and you know, I think that the percentage has gone up significantly of women who have a college education that gives them more income. And the other thing that's happening that is a very important shift is women are delaying the time when they get married and have children. And that has always had a protective effect. It doesn't mean that there's something wrong with waiting to have kids. It just means that you spend more years before you kind of pause some of the habits that you developed maybe in college or in your twenties.
I was actually going to ask about that if it matters if you're married or if you're a mom.
Yeah, I mean, so we've seen data over the years in both men and women that when they go through big life transitions, you know, essentially getting married and having kids, that the habits improve. But there's a larger cohort of women now who are spending more time without those kind of you know, so called protective effects. So that basically is putting in a greater risk for problematic drinking.
And I think one of the.
Things that is important to say is that I'm not sure the message is being delivered to women that actually, you know, drinking is tougher on our bodies than it is for men. The same amount of alcohol has a tougher effect on our bodies and greater health consequences, unfortunately or fortunately, but they discon tolerate more alcohol because of biology.
We are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis about some new numbers that show more women dying from alcohol related deaths in the US than ever before, which is really I don't know that seems so alarming some of those numbers that you quoted, Lisa, you also mentioned how this can start early. What are we seeing among college age women.
Right, so this I find especially disturbing. So, first of all, note that teenagers, and this is good news. Over the last decade or two decades, rates of alcohol consumption among teenagers has been declining. But one thing that's happening again is that this gap is narrowing between boys and girls men at that age and when they get to college. We're now seeing more women for the first time in participating in binge drinking than men who are college age. And so even though the levels are lower, women are starting to surpass men and they're more often drinking, the reporting having had a drink in the last thirty days than men who.
Are college age.
And so you know, all of this kind of can carry over into your twenties when you continue that behavior.
You know as an adult.
I have to ask if this has to do with income level as well. I remember college, I didn't participate in being's drinking, not because I'm square, but because I was broke and alcohol is expensive. Is it a not as expensive now? B Do we have kids in college who have more access to finances? I mean, what's the X factor here?
You know, that's a good question because alcohol is expensive, and that's something that researchers told me that one of the connections between midlife women and alcohol is that they can afford it. You know, they can go out and have cocktails after work because they're in the workplace, they're in more advanced careers, and that really is the segment where we're seeing the problem.
When you were looking through this study, what stood out.
One of the things that stood out to me was just the very simple idea that a lot of women aren't getting the message that drinking can be dangerous, that lower levels of drinking than they probably realize can be dangerous for them, and it's a slippery slope. And so, you know, I think a lot of researchers I talked to mentioned the idea that there tends to be a bias when a woman goes to a doctor and their doctor asks them about their drinking habits. The way that the question is asked sort of makes it difficult for them to give an honest answer or even say they drink at all, which doesn't give an opportunity to intervene.
You know.
So, I think there's a lot of societal things that changes, our cultural nerves change where women are drinking more often and that's accepted. There's not on the other end, kind of a public health message that matches that.
Oh, by the way, you can drink more, but it's going to do more damage than you realize. And here's what's at risk exactly.
You know, one researcher who you know, she studies substance use disorder, told me that she's had her own doctor ask her you don't drink, do you and it rang alarm bells with me because I feel like I've had that when I was, you know, younger, the way the question was posed to you, because that doesn't make you want to say, well, of course they do, and here's how much you know.
Instead it makes you want to say no, of course, I don't drink.
Framing really matters, And there have been studies that show that the way that doctors discuss this topic with women is different on how they discuss it with men, and that makes it again hard to intervene because especially at a point when a woman might be just slipping towards a spot where it becomes dangerous for their health.
Is there also something to be said about the advertising and the marketing of this now, because it's only been fairly recently that I've noticed, and you know, I know I live in a box or a bubble or whatever, but I've noticed the whole rose all day lifestyle, more wines or affordable I mean, like that's what's been marketed to us.
It is one hundred percent being marketed to us.
And you go to the store, there's a whole display of rose, the kind of rise of the hard Seltzer, the white claw, but you know, I was at a concert this weekend. There are probably three beers on tap and six kinds of hard seltzer that someone could you know, fruit, fruity, heard seltz someone could choose from. One researcher mentioned to me, you know that it reminded her of the kind of Virginia slim era of trying to convince women to smoke.
And it gave me chills, because I think that's true.
And we saw what happened when you know, this kind of glamorous lifestyle is proposed as being you know, smoking was part of being a modern woman, and now drinking is being marketed to us as being a you know, fun modern woman, and that's that's can have deadly consequences.
And so before we get emails from people who are like, oh, you're so square, Oh drinking is just a wonderful way to relax, YadA, YadA, YadA, you're not saying don't drink. What you're saying is just know what the consequences are if you imbibe too much or try not to.
That's exactly right.
I mean, I think I did a column on Dreyja January after trying to damp January.
Myself, and I think just really.
Be more aware of the health consequences, whether that's cardiovascular disease, liver inflammation, cancer that you know women unfortunately bear, you know, kind of deeper burden on, but also just sort of examining what your habits are and who's trying to push you to drink more. You know, someone is profiting from that, and I do think it's worth women being aware of that.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis covers biotech, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry. This is Bloomberg. It has been nearly two years since Corporate America reopened and employers are still struggling to get everybody to come back to the office. But you know what, maybe if you feed them that'll be an effective lure. Let's see what Allison Schreeger thinks of that. She's a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. She joins me, Now, Allison, when you're talking about feeding the workers, you're not talking about fast food pizza in the lunch room. You're talking about a proper hot lune lunch. Take your time, sit down. Maybe the napkin is made of a cloth as opposed to paper. How is this going to work?
Well, I'm sort of taking inspiration from the French model, where it's actually a workplace benefit that you get a sort of meal tickets to use at a local restaurant, so you actually, in the middle of the day, leave work, go to a restaurant, maybe with your coworkers, sit down, have a proper meal, maybe a glass of wine, and then go back to work. People get enough meal tickets to go every workday of the week. I normally thought that was sort of silly because I was a solid at the desk kind of person. I like an efficient I'm also an economist to understand money's fungible. So if you're getting money for sit down lunch, that's money you're not getting for your salary. I'd rather have the money. But I really am starting to think, you know, with this whole problem of getting people back to the office, and I think it's important people get back to the office, that maybe this is something we should try.
Does it boost morale? How does a proper meal have an impact that maybe other things wouldn't.
First of all, I think we're struggling from lack of connections. So it gets you to sit down and have lunch with other people, which is good. Also, as I said, it's sort of nice and novel. I mean, who has lunch in the middle of the day like an a restaurant. I mean, it is kind of special. And you know, I got a lot of emails from people talking about all the perks they've gotten over the years and how even if it was like a really fancy, well paid job, how little things like this really made the difference. And I mean, also it's a proper sit down lunch. You kind of have to commit to it, which means you have to commit.
You know.
And you did also mention that you're imagining people maybe eating lunch together, socializing, collaboration, perhaps even with your own colleagues, who if you're still working from home, you haven't actually eyeballbed them in a while, except maybe over zoom. That could also lead to what more projects, a better relationship, a better work environment.
Well, I mean, one of the reasons I don't I'm worried about work from home is I agree that we can technically do our jobs remotely, like the actual tasks, but you know, you know, we're not particularly a well socialized environment yet for having everyone be at home what's important is culture, and is connection and teamwork, So is it having lunch with your colleagues is important. I've actually had two jobs where we were forbidden from eating at our desks. One actually was in France. We did have a cafeteria because is a big enough workplace. It was at the OECD. I was completely awkward about it too, because I mean, I think people I also heard from people who feel like a little undersocialized or introverts, so this would be awkward, and it being at a French workplace is very awkward because no one spoke to me. But it's still it was good for me. Did sort of get it was a nice break connections. And the other one was actually a finance job in Texas where the owner of the company, the CEO, just felt very strongly that it was important to have people take a break and connect. And I have to say, in both those jobs, I would have said, oh, this is so inefficient, I'd rather be at my desk, But it actually in some ways did improve my efficiency because it was a nice break and it did force me to interact with people.
It seems like there'd be a loss of productivity or somehow it would be more inefficient to get food that sit and socialize maybe for an hour, maybe a little bit longer. It seems like there would be a loss of productivity.
No, certainly, if you're on a busy project, you know it feels a little stressful. But I mean in some ways it might refresh you and you might go back to the workplace recharge. And is it Also there is this idea that if you are connecting with your colleagues and you've better connections with them, part of your efficiency is working well with others and part of a team. And if it strengths thens that, Si said, I'm not going to go so far as the French and say we have to do this every day. Sure, once you twice a week and you know you don't have to have wine at every meal.
Absolutely well, it sounds like a really great idea. Allison, thank you so much for joining us.
Well, I hope it catches on.
Alison Schreeger is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by Eric Mullow and you can find all of these columns on the Bloomberg terminal. We're available as a part podcast on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are just ahead. I'm Ammy Morris, and this is Bloomberg.