Mike Rowe is a best-selling author, Emmy winner, and podcaster best known for his stand hosting the Discovery Channel's long-running Dirty Jobs, where he performed the sort of work we all rely on but don't want to think about too much. From cleaning septic tanks to putting hot tar on roots to disposing of medical waste, he's done it all and loves to talk about the value of the hard, honest work that he thinks is devalued by a society fixated on sending everyone to college. I caught up with Rowe at Freedom Fest, an annual gathering held this year in Memphis. We talked about how his Mike Rowe Works Foundation matches young people interested in learning trades with employers dying for applicants, why men continue to fall farther behind women in school and work, and how Noble Whiskey, named after Mike's maternal grandfather, is fueling his nonprofit's impact. Mike Rowe, thanks for talking to reason. It's been a hot minute, man. It has been. It's been, what was it, 2016 or 2017? 14 was the first one, which I thought went very well. 16, again, which, modesty aside, I thought was even better. So my expectation, I don't even know what to think about, what's about that. Yeah, this, I'm thinking Spider-Man 3, the third Matrix movie, this is a disaster, written all over it. But you don't know, right? You don't know where the line is until you go over it. So I think in the spirit of self-reflection, we ought to just check each other as we go. Okay. Do me this favor, if you would. Yes. Because I can't remember. If you, if I start to tell a story that I've already told you, just saying, this is like the third time you've said this already. So, yes. Is that all you have? No. Very good. So, well, what is your mission these days? Or, I guess a better way of phrasing it, and I should have just started with this, you know, you kind of emerged as a person talking about policy on the backs of noting the tremendous mismatch between the way we're educating our kids and the economy that's out there, and also what, you know, what different kids want. And you talked about how, you've talked about how we've made work the enemy about how vocational and technical schooling at the high school level has all but disappeared in a mad rush to push people into a college track, which however well-intentioned, I think we both obviously benefited from going to college. So it's not either or, but it's left a lot of kids stuck in school that they don't like, and it's left a lot of employers just kind of like, where is my work? Where are my workers? Give us an update on how things are going in terms of the Micro Works Foundation matching, you know, people who might be interested in trade jobs and employers who desperately need them. Well, I'm older than I've ever been, right? And so that's really the thing. I said some things to you 10 years ago, and I said some things on Labor Day of 2008 when we started Micro Works that have turned out to be kind of prophetic if I don't say so myself. And while I'm not going to take a victory lap on any of it, because some of the news is bad, by and large, the operating thesis has been born out. We gave college a giant PR campaign that it really did need starting back in the 70s. But all that great press came at the expense of virtually every other form of education. And as a result, we created a giant gap in the workforce between blue and white collar jobs. White were clearly ascendant. Blue was clearly subordinate. And the rift in our workforce and the labor shortage that we're seeing today, in my estimation, can be walked right back to the moment we decided to take shop class out of high school. And so many things followed that as a result. One of those things in a completely tertiary way was a show called Dirty Jobs, which basically gave me permission to crawl through sewers and channel my inner eight-year-old. Finally, yeah. I mean, it was such an odd thing, Nick, for that show to happen the way it happened. But to your very kind preface to the question you posed, I didn't really start looking for a way to articulate policy because I had some deeply held belief and I needed to be heard. That crazy show blew up and then the headlines caught up to the themes of the show. So in 2008, Dirty Jobs had been on for five years. Suddenly, it's this hit, the country goes into a recession, work finds its way into the headlines along with the skills gap. And people started to call me to see if I had an opinion. And I kind of did, but honestly, it wasn't so much of mine as what was left over from buying lots of beer for lots of people who we featured on the show and listening to them, bitch, complain, moan and just wax on about the challenges of running a small business that required skilled labor. So after hearing a lot of that micro work started and today, 15 years later, I really haven't changed a thing. We're still saying, look, the opportunities that exist are real. They're underserved. They're under promoted. And the skills gap has widened. Last time we talked, there were 2.3 million open positions. Sorry, there were probably close to four or five in 2016. And these are like trade jobs. Well, broadly speaking, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but of the 11 million open jobs today, the vast majority don't require a four year degree. They require training. So does that make them trade jobs? Not necessarily, but a big chunk of them are. On the consumer side, I think the real thing that's changed that's alarming and also was pretty easy to predict was how long do you want to wait for a plumber? So the conversation used to be, let me talk about the myths and misperceptions that keep people out of plumbing, so people who might want to jump into that trade will benefit. And then it was, well, let's talk about some of the stigmas and the stereotypes that keep parents and guidance counselors from promoting these trades because now we're just getting in our own way. Today it's just, how long do you want to wait for a plumber? More an electrician. Today, and this is what I sort of hoped would happen because I think it's the final step in writing the ship, we have to have people who don't work in the trades or who don't employ trades people to realize that they nevertheless have skin in the game and they have to be a part of the conversation. And that is like, I don't want to wait six months for a plumber. That's right. That's when it gets personal. Has the plumbing industry and maybe other trades, you know, carpentry or just construction, things like that, have they changed the way that they go after workers and have they made it easier to enter those trades? Because depending on where you live, if you live, you know, as I have at various points in the Midwest and small towns, you know, getting into something is very different than I live in New York City now. And, you know, if there's something harder than getting into Columbia or NYU, it might be getting into the plumber's union, right? So, I mean, have the trades changed the way that they attract and kind of train people? That's a really interesting point. I hadn't thought about elitism in the trades in the way that, you know, the difficulty of getting into a certain union might help set that table. I do think broadly things have changed. Your first point was from a recruiting proposition, are companies becoming more persuasive in making a case for themselves? And I think they have. But again, that's pretty broad. Some have for sure. Some have. We can learn a lot, I think, about the recruiting messages that we see in the armed forces. They're different. The Army has a different proposition than the Navy. They're close. The Navy wants you to go on an adventure. The Army wants you to be all you can be. And you'll leave better for it as a result. The Coast Guard, I'm not quite sure what they're saying, but it's also a variation on that theme. I suspect the Coast Guard always has a lot of people going there because that's the safest branch. It feels like it. Now, the Seabees different deal. They're trades, right? So, all of these are interesting right till you get to the Marines who say, probably not for you. Yeah, right. And so there is something fundamentally interesting about, historically anyway, the challenge of recruiting into the Marines versus everybody else. It might be a bit of a stretch, but I think employers have made a mistake over the years by apologizing for the opportunities, by saying, look, it's better than you think, or it's not as bad as you've been told. And so everything just feels subordinate going in. When in fact, right now, and this has changed a lot too, we've assisted nearly 2000 people through micro-works. We've awarded close to $7 million in work ethic scholarships. And for me, Nick, the big change now is it's not just me older than I've ever been anecdotally telling you about what I think might be a good idea for your kids. We can now bring back people who we've assisted three, four years ago and sit down just like this, and I can talk to them and they tell their story. And when a millennial or a Gen Zer, here's a 25-year-old, 26-year-old woman talk about making $160,000 a year welding, right?  They're just more persuasive than I am. The optics are better. Yeah, and they have more skills than you. Brutal. My toolbox is limited and not a traditional blue collar one. But yes, they do. They're highly skilled and as important, they possess the kind of work ethic that I think every parent hopes their kids inherit, and certainly every employer hopes their employees possess. Let's talk a little bit about work ethic.  And I don't want to just be the old man who is like... I can remember my Little League coaches, my Boy Scout troop leaders who would just get apoplectic.  I don't want to be that person. But when you look at questions, maybe not of work ethic, because you start to get into value judgments, but labor force participation, right? One of the things that is amazing is that the idea of an after-school job, if you're in high school now, if you're 16 years old, you basically don't work. What went into that? Why did those jobs disappear? And what are the effects of coming out of high school and increasingly, you know, people coming out of college without ever having done even, you know, a kind of make-work job for a couple hours a week? I think, boy, that's a big one. Part of the answer has to do, I believe, with the idea that we think the lower rungs on the ladder are somehow less important. Part of it has to do with the conversation we've heard around, like the minimum wage, right? And so many arguments that attempt to take an entry-level job that was never designed to generate enough income to support you and belittle that opportunity because it's not a higher rung, right? And so we just entered into this space, I think, where we wanted all of the rungs on the ladder to be absolutely equal. And because they're not, we began to look for scapegoats, right? And we began to look for explanations as to how these lower rungs were somehow marginalized, right? It's just all, it's goofy. There's a chronology to climbing a ladder. There's a chronology to living your life, you know, and we're supposed to be smarter as we get older. I hope we are. But I don't know, to me, the conversations I've had with a lot of people coming right out of college is they don't want to waste their time on the lower rungs. There's an impatience with it. And that's really a shame because, you know, the things you can learn on the lower rungs, the things you're supposed to learn are just, are manifold. I am wondering how much in the interim since we last talked, I co-authored a story at Reason about Millennials, which, and this would have been around, you know, 2015, 2016, something like that. So around the time we talked, and it was very positive because Millennials were doing pretty well and they seemed hopeful, you know, things change. But, you know, I remember writing about how they were going to be the first generation in American, really deliver on the American dream where I thought about my grandparents, who were immigrants from Ireland and Italy, came here, they left horrible circumstances, came to bad circumstances, but they got to choose them at least. My parents and my aunts and uncles were raised in, you know, immigrant ghettos and then went through the Depression in World War II, and it was much better. But they worked during the week to have a little bit of money on the weekend to have fun. Their jobs were not fulfilling. They did not expect them to be fulfilling. My siblings and my kind of cousin cohort, we more or less got, we had many more options in our jobs. Some of, for some of us are very expressive of who we are and what we want to do, but my kids' generation, you know, and this is, I have one millennial and one Gen Z, this is the delivery on the promise that their jobs are going to really express who they are and what they care about fundamentally.  And I realized part of it was, I was saying like, could you imagine being told when you're 21, go out and find a job that expresses who you are and your deepest commitments, whether they're political or social or ideological.  How did work become the primary metric, the mirror that we hold up? It's a big important part of our lives for sure. But you're so right, the pressure. I know I pushed that into circulation, like I believe that. And I realized now it's kind of a, you know, it was a big miscalculation to expect young people to know what they wanted to do and then also be able to do it because I, you know, when I look back at my, you know, entire career is a mix of dirty jobs, like of the sort that you would do and then the kind of intellectual equivalent of that, of writing for teen magazines and business magazines and things that you would never in a thousand years want to read yourself. But that's what you do in order to build the skills so that you know what you want and you might be able to get a job doing that.  Sometimes your day might have felt like grudgery.  You know, the irony is with Gen Z and again, way too broad a brush, but I've hired a few and around my foundation, you know, they come in knowing that, okay, well, MicroWorks is trying to close the skills gap, right? MicroWorks believes that, you know, all jobs are opportunities and that some jobs have gotten short shrift and they get all that. And six months later, you know, they'll come into the office and let's say, so look, I've been reading some articles and the skills gap is not closed yet. Yeah. I've been here six months. Okay. What's the holdup? Right. And so it's easy to poke fun at that, but I try not to because it just, who gave them that expectation? If these are snowflakes, where are the clouds from which they fell? That would be us. Yeah, totally. And so, you know, I want to give the benefit of the doubt to everybody I meet in terms of their own work ethic. I don't want to think of people as being fundamentally lazy. The problem is they are. When I say they, I mean me. Yeah. This is the fault in our stars. We're not born eager to get up early, stay late, volunteer for the crappy jobs. We're rivers trying to get to the ocean. We got to a mountain. We don't go over. We just go around it. Just keep going. So, you know, there's a lot of new research since we spoke last that goes to work ethic and goes right to your point. Nick Eberstadt wrote a great book back in 2016 called Men Without Work and he republished it after the lockdowns because it just became hyper real and super relevant. According to him, 7.2 million able-bodied men in prime working age are sitting out the workforce. You know, not just not working, but affirmatively not looking for work, right? That's new. That's never happened in peacetime. What do you think goes into that? Like why? I mean, part of me wants this. You know, I agree it's problematic and, you know, I'm prepping for this. I was looking at Bureau of Labor Statistics, labor force participation rights, and this is men and women. So, it's a whole workforce. Basically, the only place where there are more people of a given age working than in 2001 or if you're 55 and older, all of the younger categories, there's a smaller percentage of 25 to 34 year olds working now than in 2001. And it's kind of like, where is that? You know, part of me wants to say, well, that's an artifact of wealth. Like you were saying, you know, like if you don't have to work for a living, why would you? So, we're carrying more people. Right. But, you know, then it's kind of interesting that people over 55 are hustling more. It's an artifact of comfort for sure. I don't know if it's an artifact of wealth. I do think that if we succeed in making work the enemy as a society, if we succeed in identifying the proximate cause of our misery as this antiquated routine of getting up and driving in and so forth and so on. Well, then, yeah, we're gonna look for any dodge we can find in order not to do that. But you don't have to be wealthy not to work. You just have to be able not to work in order not to work. Yeah, yeah. So, wherever the standard is, it's being met by lots and lots and lots and lots of things. So, part of that might be, you know, that families have a little bit more money, so they're letting kids, you know, stick around longer without paying rent or, you know, leaving the nest. Some of it is surely, you know, transfer payments. You know, I know George W. Bush was assailed as a conservative, but he was a compassionate conservative. And when he took office in, you know, right around the time of the tech bubble bursting, he expanded a variety of welfare benefits that he never really closed. So, when the economy took off, so people, you know, were able to get food stamps were able to get there. And I'm not, you know, we can argue about whether or not these are good things in general, but we as a society, you know, both kind of in a family level and at a governmental level, we support more people not working than we used to. Right. He also says that you're talking about senior Bush senior? No, W was the compassionate conservative. That's right. Now, his dad, I believe, was the guy who talked about a thousand points of light. That's right. Okay. One of which we should point out, especially to younger people was throwing up on a Japanese politician, which is kind of great. I think we should, I wish politics had more of that. He threw up on a Japanese politician. Now, but didn't his son get a shoe thrown out by a Japanese reporter? Well, I think it was an Iraqi or a Middle Eastern. Are we really going to conflate Japan and Iraq on this podcast? Yeah, I don't think I am. I don't think I'm going to. Somebody may have. Point being, if we're in a society where a thousand points of light are real, that is to say, many, many, many charitable endeavors run by passionate people who care deeply about approving life in their zip code, right? If that's the world that we're in, then we might be able to look at Everstatt's numbers and go, okay, what are these 7.2 million able bodied men doing if they're not affirmatively looking for work? Might they, he said hopefully, be engaged with one of these points of light? Might they be doing something to contribute to society and ultimately to themselves as a result of this? And unfortunately, the data says no, they're not doing that at all. What they're doing is spending over 2000 hours a year on their screens. They're swiping left, they're swiping right, they're tick-tocking, they're just doing that thing. And look, that might be a little too disparaging. Maybe what they're doing on their screens is taking deep dives into thoughtful conversations like this one or taking free courses from MIT. I don't know, but whatever it is, it's new. Whatever they're doing, it's not public service, it's not work as we understand it. They're outside of the mechanism. They're not even drug dealing, for God's sake. They're not even drug dealing. It's the new level of laziness. You know, to drill down on this a little bit though too, like you started talking about men and you know, Nick Everstatt's book along with Richard Reeves has a book out of Boys and Men which also looks at it. Let's focus a little bit on the gender component of this. Are women dropping out of the workforce in the same way? I don't know, Nick. What is a woman? Yeah, that's true. That's a good question. Really, we're going to do this? Well, I can tell you anecdotally, my foundation, the amount of people who apply for work ethic scholarships, there are more men than women, but there are a shockingly high number of women. And these are for jobs that traditionally were just considered more male? Correct. In fact, like welding is a terrific example. We've been trying to do a better job of telling the stories of the people that I've just mentioned. And we just shot with five of them, created five PSAs, which modesty aside are terrific. And my favorite one is with a woman named Chloe Hudson who applied for work ethic scholarship six years ago. We gave her a little bit of money. She was this close to borrowing a few hundred grand to be the plastic surgeon that she had always dreamed of becoming, but froze up at the last second as an awful lot of money. And she just didn't want to do it. Flash forward, she is a rock star, right? She's just killing it. Everybody loves her. She's so good at what she does. What she do? She right now, she's working over at Joe Gibbs, right? So she's working on race cars. She had worked in various other fields prior to that, but always welding. It just made sense to her, which is so interesting if you juxtapose a plastic surgeon with a welder. It's a different kind of surgery, right? Yeah, I don't know, but there's a lot of similarity. Well, I'll tell you where it gets dissimilar. There's zero debt. There's 160 grand a year and there is the abject admiration of lots of men who look at her and see the talent that she has. She said, just like we're talking right now, when she said, I'm not the best female welder. I'm not a welder. She doesn't care about the gender. She aggressively doesn't care about it. She cares about the talent, right? So I'm tempted to say some things broadly about what's going on with gender and the workforce, but I think the book you referenced is on point. I think we're failing our boys badly. I think about it too in terms of when you were talking about, we try to avoid work if possible. I remember a moment, I would hear this from my relatives and friends of mine who had parents and grandparents the same age and you would always hear the same story and it finally clicked with me, which was that the depression hit, 1929 came, and grandpa could never find work again. But grandma somehow was cooking for people, cleaning, running a rooming house, doing all things. And finally, about the 30th time I heard that, I was like, how is it that women during the depression started working like 20 jobs, whereas the men, including my father's father, just kind of disappeared and would show up every once in a while when he sniffed welfare money or a paycheck. And I was like, there's something different about men, I think, that is disturbing. We're all, we have the Jughead Jones trait where we will put in as much time to avoid work as just getting it done and then getting on with the rest of life. So what about this? What if women in a general way are more like a general practitioner? And what if men in a general way are more like a specialist? Maybe men gravitate toward the kind of skill that feels like a speciality, right? And maybe women, historically anyway, because they have to do so many different things, just approach work from a different angle. Look, I think the modern day farmer and the old day farmer, for that matter, are probably the best example of what I'm talking about. It's not a gender thing. It's just this idea that if you're going to be a successful farmer, you better understand the environment, you better understand ecology, you better understand food science, you better understand plumbing, you better understand veterinary science. You have to do a lot of things. You also have to be able to transact like when you're selling your crops or your livestock.  They're so good at what they do, they're so efficient, right? One and a half percent of the country is feeding 330 million people three times a day and the rest of the world. And so, you know, they have to look at work differently in my view. And just a quick sidebar too, as far as I forget, I think it's so interesting. I learned years ago, a miner told me this. He said, with respect to work, there are many, many, many, many jobs, but there are only two industries, farming and mining. Every single thing in this room, in this hotel, here at Freedom Fest, every single thing is either grown from the ground and turned into something useful that we can eat or, you know, sit in, or it's pulled from the ground and fashioned by a tradesman and into something useful. So those are the only two industries that matter. Everything else becomes a more specialized thing, you know? So maybe there's something in this idea of industries versus jobs, or careers versus vocations, and just the way we think about work when we're young to your earlier point. I mean, how did you think about it in terms of, like you, when you were describing your childhood and your dad's childhood, there was adversity in it. There were challenges and things. Do you feel like those tempered you in a way that actually made your parents' job maybe a little easier than it would be today for a wealthy set of parents, you know?  You know, it used to be, and, you know, he never used a pyramid, but we're in Memphis, named after a city with pyramids. There's a big pyramid right around the corner from here. So I'm going to invoke a pyramid, but we, you know, all of humanity has moved so far up the pyramid that we're all like pharaohs now. Nobody is, you know, nobody's actually schlepping rock anymore. And as a result, you know, you become pickier and choosier and things like that. But to go to your point, you know, when I went to college because I didn't want to live with my parents and I could afford it and I paid for it myself. And then when I graduated college, I would work so I could get money to travel in a 1970 Plymouth Valiant that broke down because I stupidly thought that I could actually do two knots. By the way, I mean, the Valiant, are you kidding me? Who doesn't buy a car called the Valiant?  I had ruined virtually every aspect of it, but it would still keep going. But I would work for three months or six months. And then over a number of years, I was like, okay, well, what am I good at?  And I kind of crept into journalism. I worked in Johnson and Johnson personal product factories. I did a lot of horrible jobs. But then it started, you know, what, what I was good at and what I wanted to do and what the world would pay me for all sort of to come into more focus. Well, let's go back to your car, man, because look, I Valiant, the coward dies a thousand deaths. Yeah, the Valiant, but one. I mean, never mind the fact that cars used to be named amazingly cool things. Now we have what the probe or whatever it is.  There is something valiant and something noble about everything you've just described. It's all it's it's rooted in in practicality. And it's a, you know, it's it's the part of the iceberg that you don't see, which incidentally brings me back to the pyramid. A lot of people, like if you look at those three pyramids in Egypt, have you ever seen the the imagined of graphic that shows you the subterranean look of what's beneath the pyramids? I'm afraid to look, but tell me. It's picture the Washington monument. Like what if the pyramids are just the top of the Washington monument? What if under them are hundreds or thousands of feet of this giant rectangle? A pyramid is just the top of a thing. But we tend to look at pyramids as this the apex of something literally, literally, but we don't imagine what might be under it. Right. Right. So do you think then that we, you know, kind of as a society, we've, we've lost, you know, the process of what goes on underneath and adds to all of this, including work. I mean, because, you know, when I think about it, it's also, you know, the, the, the work that you do or not, maybe not the work, the activity you do, maybe in your 20s. And I think this is true on some level of every socioeconomic level, but you wander around because you don't know who you are. And you're not supposed to know who you are. And you're supposed to go out and, you know, have a lot of adventures and a lot of experiences.  And, and you kind of figure out what you know, what path you want to actually take. How many times do you have to touch the hot stove? Yeah. Before you realize that's not a thing I want to touch. Well, I'm thinking more actually about the old orange shoes, concentrate cans in the freezer. And I would touch my tongue to that every time because I was like, this time it's not going to stay. Wow. Well, you know what?  Maslow would have said something very different about you. That's true. But yes, that's it on steroids. Our peripheral vision seems to have vanished. We can only see the stuff that's right in front of us. We can't see a pyramid as anything other than a three-dimensional triangle that sits on the ground. That's what dirty jobs, this is my whole career. Now that I think about it, I mean, celebrating the work that's out of sight and therefore out of mind, was just simply a thing that wasn't done on TV. And then we started to do it. And then a conversation unfolded that said, wait a minute, there is an awful lot of things going on that we can't see that matter a lot. And so for me, I think everything we're talking about right now is a mix of two really interesting things. It's the stuff you can't see that is nevertheless salient. And then it's the stuff that is impossible to not see, the marketing, the PR, the name of the car, the valiant. All of that thought that goes into branding work, all that thought that goes into promoting opportunity, that's PR in its purest form. So when you have something that's that overt, trying to make a persuasive case for the part of the pyramid you can't see, you've got a pretty interesting challenge. It's a pretty interesting balance. But if you only look at the surfacey promo-y thing, then I think you wind up kind of where we are now, with millions of jobs that have great opportunities attached to them that people are highly skeptical of. So a more balanced conversation might lead to a more balanced workforce.  And that's even, that's the wrong term for this. Fewer people are going to college. I was just looking at the numbers. In 2019, about 66% of high school graduates immediately went on to some form of higher ed. And it is down in 2021 to 62%. So it's decline, COVID, I'm sure is part of that, various factors go into that. But it's still, and if you go back to 1970, it was something like, I think under 50% of people immediately went on to college. So we're in a peak period. But have you talked to high school people or are they changing the curriculum or the way that they talk about what do you do when you graduate from here? The conversations definitely changed. But again, in pockets, a lot of this is geographical. As for the curriculum, my foundation now has a curriculum that's in 20 schools. We hope to get in many, many, many more. That's a tough sell for all sorts of reasons. So I don't know on a macro level, really where we are with this. But I do know that when we started, I talked to some educators in Peoria.  I swear I'm not, because Caterpillar was an early partner. And there they are. This is a classic, Kat's a great case study for a company that is constantly trying to recruit for great jobs that people don't think are great jobs. And part of the reason, Nick, is because guidance counselors in their very hometown, they're in Illinois, the proposition to a kid is, okay, four year over here, we've got opportunities over here. And if you don't do this, and if you don't do that, you know what you're going to wind up doing?  You don't want to do that, right? Well, guess what? The cat dealer down the road, turning the wrench is killing it. He basically set his own hours at this point. Some are union, some are not. It depends. But that's what I mean. It's like the perception really is very granular. And it's show me a guidance counselor who's doing it right, and I'll show you one who's getting it wrong. I don't know what the research really says, honestly, in a broad way. But I can feel it tipping. And I also don't know how to react when you say that fewer people are going to college now.  You know, the first time we talked, you asked me a great question in it. You asked me to explain the fact that so many kids who graduated from college by and large were making a better living than those who who didn't go to college and who just had high school. And whatever answer I gave you, I thought about it later.  The better answer is most of those charts. In fact, I've never seen one that has as part of the rubric a cohort of people who finished high school, but went on to master a skill that was in demand by any right could be an apprenticeship program could be a trade school, whatever it was. That cohort is never represented. And what I've realized since our earlier conversations and now that the foundation is 15 years old is that's where we live. We're looking for people. Education is not the enemy. The four year school is not the enemy. We both benefited, I think, from a liberal arts degree tremendously. I got mine in 84, I'm guessing you were there in 85. 85, yeah. And I worked for a while and then I went to grad school and got a master's and a PhD. Look at you go. Look at that. Total cost of your education if you had to back the envelope.  No, back then. It's hard to say because I got financial aid and I worked and I took out a few amount of loans, but I came out of a PhD with my PhD, including undergrad, maybe $10,000 in debt total. In debt. My entire thing, two years of community college, year off, back to school, got a BS in communications and some other minors and whatever. I think the whole thing, the whole thing was $12,900. Today, same school, same course loads, 92 grant, right? So, I mean, good God.   I just hate those specific children. Yeah, but it is a kind of interesting question, right? Are those the people who aren't going to college, are they doing something else, or are they just hitting the next level in Minecraft or World of Warcraft or something like that? Right. And look, I don't think it's fair or nice even to compare a liberal arts degree to a skilled trade. I just think the proposition is different, but it is fair to say that I can get the exact equivalent of a liberal arts degree if I'm curious and I have an internet connection, not a smartphone, right? 99% of the known information in the world is now in my pocket and I can access it whenever I want. That wasn't the case in 1984 for me. So the access to the information is different. If I may, I would also say for me, and I suspect this is true a lot of people, you know, in a similar boat, going to college, among other things, gave me an appreciation for the wider world. Oh yeah.  And by that, I don't mean like how you get to do this or that, but it's like, it's you can choose your own adventure, which is really important, I think. And that can be one of the great goals of education. You don't hear much about that anymore.  It's understandable because the price goes up. And also when you have second and third and fourth generation kids going to college, you know, the parents aren't going to sit around. My father didn't graduate high school. He literally had no idea what I did in college. When my older brother who was a national merit scholar, like he was a really smart guy, my parents were like, well, you're going to college. But they did, they were like, how do you do that? They didn't, they knew people got into college, but they didn't know how. But that's the point of the liberal arts. To me, that was what the transaction was about. You're a curious person, and we're going to satisfy your curiosity. We're going to encourage you to study all kinds of different things that you may or may not be interested in.  What you're going to be is a better, well-rounded person, more so than you were when you went in.  And then you're going to learn a practical skill. That's how it always tracked for me.  It's very hard to get off of that road. And so if you choose poorly at 17 or 18, you're locked into a nightmare. It's not just a nightmare. It's a very pricey fever dream.  Now you're holding the paper. Maybe you owe your dad. Maybe you owe Freddie or Fannie Mae, whatever it is. It's so, so hard for kids to go the other way now. After we spoke in 2016, there was a presidential debate, big one. You'll remember all 17 of those luminaries up there, right? This is like a mini series. I think it's still going on. It's going to help us. Marco said something in response. I forgot what the question was, but he said, what this country needs are more welders and fewer philosophers. Big applause line.  This guy gets it.  I'm doing something wrong because that's not at all what I mean. That's the binary thought. What I responded to in the wake of that was, look, what our country needs are more welders who can talk intelligently about Descartes and Nietzsche. And what our country needs are more philosophers who can run an even bead. It's not this or that. That's that blue collar, white collar trap thing. If you're not this, you must be that. That's not what we're about. That's a great point. And I mean, if anything, one would hope that the 21st century, whenever it gets started, is going to be different. It's not going to be binary like the 20th century was. Labor versus management.  Like we are digging into binaries that made the 20th century in many ways a fantastic, you know, the best century so far, but also a hell hole, right? Because it's... How do you think the whole work from home phenomenon right now fits in with that? I mean, that feels like a new thing that's really defining people and separating people. I think during COVID, it was a very stark distinction, you know, the kind of what was called the laptop class or the bathrobe class. I found it kind of revolting in the sense of, you know, for those of us who could work from home and, you know, I was able... On Amazon, I was able to buy a higher resolution web camera. And I was able to do many more video interviews, you know, because everybody was around. And I knew a lot of people in my circumstance who were like, let's not rush back to work. You know, we don't, you know, we can wait this out. And this was, they had no idea who was delivering the packages that were, you know, showing up magically at their door every day. And it was kind of amazing to see that kind of divide. And I find that, you know, deeply troubling because this goes to your point that like a lot of us are not thinking about, okay, how does the whole system work? We only see the things that are, you know, that we want to see. Having said that, I've been working from home. I've been telecommuting as it used to be called since about 1996. I've had stints in offices since and reason has a big office in DC. But I am of a mixed mind. I think, again, it's kind of a reversion to the 19th century, you know, where most people before factories, most people work from home.  It's like, it's a little bit, you know, tough. But I do think what we're seeing is a shift away from stricter markations between work and non-work and life. And I think they pose certain types of challenges because you do, it is kind of nice to have an office that's away from your home so that you're keeping things a little bit different. But it's also, it's a melding that is quite good. And we need to start coming up with better ways of thinking about this stuff so that we organize it so it doesn't all slop into one another. Have you heard the back and forth between Elon Musk and Kevin O'Leary on this? Musk is basically saying this is a moral issue. Get to work. This is a, it's morally wrong for a giant chunk of the workforce to work from home simply because A, they can or B, they want to. That's not the deal, right?    So I have 54 companies that I run and the majority of them are not coming. In fact, none of them are coming to work every day. Some are coming half the time and many aren't coming at all. But they're all getting their work done and so forth and so on.  Maybe they're on vacation. I don't care. If you're going to do this, then if you're going to blur the work lifeline as an employee, then I'm going to blur it as an employer and you are now a doctor on call with a pager in 1980 and I'm running the hospital, right? And that made me think, oh, well then that at least, now we have a pendulum swinging both ways and now would the person who would prefer to work from home be comfortable with that new distinction or would they say, no, no, no. I want it to be just like it was when I was at the office, but I don't want to be at the office, right? So I think it's a conversation worth having. I agree. And I mean, this is, you know, this is how things evolve and change and the technologies and the organizations that last are the ones that, you know, kind of figure out how to benefit people more. I know when I moved from Los Angeles to a small town in Texas, a prison town, in fact, in Texas. You should write brochures. Yeah. And come to, what was the name of the town? Huntsville, Texas. Oh, Huntsville, yeah. Now with prisons. Terrific. Yes, that's right. Well, it always had prisons. It was built in order to kind of house prisoners. But in any case, when I moved from LA to Texas, I was like, I am never going to work again, like, because I can work from home. Why would I ever do any work? And it turned out to be the exact opposite. And I think this is pretty common where I had a home office, and I had a fax machine, a plain paper fax machine, which was like, unbelievable. Like, look at me, you know, the son of peasants owning a plain paper fax machine in like 1996. And every time I could hear the fax machine click on, I would like, I could be deep asleep. I could be out in the backyard cutting the grass, you know, with no earphones on or anything. And I would immediately be in and making sure that that wasn't the most important facts of my life, of my work life. And so it takes a while to get all of this stuff right. Right. And it I mean, it takes decades and societies just like individuals have learning curves. But I'm glad to hear that Kevin O'Leary is pushing back on, you know, the idea of, okay, the emergency is over.  Right. You know, but it's not all fun and games.  But it was the thing that evolved naturally from that which preceded it. And to argue that that's going to be the way it always is forever and ever. Amen. Well, that or that that's the golden age to which we must return. Aspire. I mean, this is the, you know, what I think is so great about the current moment we live in for all of the problems and whatnot is just that the proliferation of choices and options that individuals get to make. Yeah. About how to live their life, about where to live, about what work to do, you know, even, even to work is fantastic. It's a, it can be overwhelming. We all have moments. I'm sure you remember the, oh God, it was Robin Williams movie Moscow on the Hudson where he plays a saxophone player from the Soviet Union who escapes and comes to New York. And then it's like gobsmacked when he's standing in a grocery aisle. And I think it's all of the different types of toothpaste. Can't believe it. Yeah. That's a Boris Yeltsin moment. Yeah, he's paralyzed by the amount of choice. And I think sometimes that happens to us as a society, but then the, if the, if the response to that is like, we've got to shut down choice and we have to have two or three networks, two or three types of jobs, two or three genders even. And that's it. Like, we're doing it wrong. Well, you have to look in that movie, the scales fell from his eyes, but only when he saw the totality of the choices. And it, and it happened too with when Boris Yeltsin walked into that, it was a Randall's supermarket in Texas, right? He, you know, he was still very much the Soviets guy and he was finishing his tour here. It was pudding pops. He saw the pudding pops and he wept for his people because around the pudding pops was all that fresh produce. And it was just everywhere. And he later rose. That's, that's when I knew we're just dead men walking. We, we're not going to win this. We can't, you know, but it comes from seeing the thing that's underneath the pyramid. It comes from seeing he had to see it. A guy at that level still, it wasn't enough to hear about the prosperity. And this was Yeltsin. This was Boris Yeltsin. Wow. Yeah. And I guess that's why he started drinking so much. Well, sure. And drinking a rich variety of juices available at Randall's now on sale. And I, this is a good way to segue into something that I want to talk with you about, which is your whiskey line. Oh, okay. And one of the reasons why I want to talk about that is because I was looking at the way that you guys promote it and the way that you talk about it and whatnot. And you have a bit on the website about like our story. And it was your, it's, it's called Noble whiskey. Yeah. K-N-O-B-E-L. And that's your grandfather's name. Yeah, that's my father. And could you tell the story of that? Because what I think is beautiful about it is that it's a tribute to the past, but it's also something very modern and kind of forward. Yes. Carl Noble was a magician who lived next door to me where I grow up. He also happened to be my grandfather. And when I say magician, I don't, he didn't pull rabbits out of hats, but he got up clean, wandered out into the world, came home dirty. And as a result, something was fixed. Something was better. He could take your watch apart and put it back together, blindfolded, same thing with a combine. He could build a house without a blueprint. He was that guy. He only went to the seventh grade, but he had this, he had the chip, right? And I was pretty sure I was going to follow in his footsteps because I wanted to. I really, really wanted to. And when you're 13, well, that's your passion. You follow your passion and, you know, but of course the handy gene is recessive, as you certainly know. And so I had to get a different toolbox and it was my pop who said, do that, get a different toolbox. You can be a tradesman. You can just, that's a state of mind. But find something. I don't care. Who cares if you're passionate about it. Just find something you're good at and figure out how to love it, right? So that was the best advice I ever got. And that got me in entertainment and way leads on to way. And the next thing I knew I was 42 and he was dying. Well, he was 90 and my mother called me.  He's not going to be around forever. Wouldn't it be great if before he died, he could turn on the TV and see you doing something that looked like work. And the next day I took a cameraman into the sewers of San Francisco. And that's how dirty jobs started. Five years later, micro work started when our economy went into a recession and dirty jobs was a giant hit. And I wanted to do something with these good cards I got and try not be a completely rapacious capitalist and give something back. So the TV show dirty jobs and the foundation micro works were both dedicated to Carl Noble. He only had girls and when he died, he got a weird name and his name died with him. And then the crazy thing happened that I want to talk to you about around essentiality and the notion of essential work. Because when we locked down a couple years ago, that expression got dragged back into the headlines, right? Essential essential work. It's a non essential work. Exactly. And man, was this an eye opener for me because dirty jobs was the grandfather of essential working shows. And the pressure, the enthusiasm really from fans saying, bring the show back. And the network was into it and I was into it. So I started filming dirty jobs again during the lockdown and to sort of commemorate the madness of that decision, both because I swore I was done in 2012 and because I'm going out to film at the precise moment when we were at the height of the sum of all fears. So I wanted to do a show about essential work when we were locked down, not because I thought that these jobs are more essential than your job or any other job, but because I realized in that moment that all work is essential. There is no such thing as an unessential job because everybody's essential to somebody. So I had a little parapetia there in the midst of my quasi retirement and I went back to work and I thought, what better way to celebrate all this than put my grandfather's name on some really decent five-year-old Tennessee whiskey that came to my attention. You can't just launch a whiskey brand that's five years old. You have to find the juice and through a weird set of circumstances, I got a line on it. I told myself if it tastes good, I'm going to go for it and it tasted good. So I started selling it as a fundraiser for MicroWorks online. We've been doing it for a year and a half. The feedback's been great and now I'm in the freaking whiskey business, Nick. So one of the things that's fascinating is, I mean, that's a way of telling a story about the past that is not, it doesn't trap us in the past because one of the other things, I mean, I think America as a kind of concept is always struggled with the past where we're proud of it or we look at a revolutionary roots, but then we're also ashamed rightly of all sorts of terrible things that happened in the past. And the question is, how do you pay respect to the past without being trapped? How are you informed by the past but not trapped in the past? So that, man, that really gets to it because when Trump said, let's make America great again, the opposition really didn't have too much of a choice other than to take the position that it was never great in the first place. And so they did. And suddenly things got reduced into such a horrible binary where a lot of my friends who were very, very anti-Trump were suddenly making arguments. I know they didn't really believe because the proposition, the table had suddenly been set to prove that America was not exceptional, to prove that this country was never great. That's what he forced them to do. They didn't have to do it, but they took the bait. So that's what you're, by the way, to be fair, the same thing is true of Black Lives Matter. When people told me that Black Lives Matter and when they said it with passion and maybe even shook their finger, I found myself going, well, duh, I know that. Why are you telling me a thing that I know? And I suddenly found myself saying things like, well, all lives matter, which of course became heretical and deeply insulting. But that's how we do it. We grab a bromide, we turn it into a platitude, and then we got a megaphone and we scream it and we force people to take positions they normally wouldn't take. I think that's kind of, how do you venerate, how do you elevate the past without turning it into a one-dimensional mythology? And honestly, the only way I can think of to do that is to make sure you look at what's under the pyramid and tell both sides. Now, I'm trying to sell some whiskey, so I'm not going to tell you about my grandfather's shortcomings. I'm not going to tell you about his disappointments because that's just bad marketing. But if I were really sitting down with you over a beer and trying to express the measure of the man, well, then you would hear the good, the bad and the ugly. You'd hear the rest of the story. When I write stories on my podcast, I still try to do that.   So it's fun to create cognitive dissonance in people's minds. Bad guys don't always twirl their moustaches and wear black hats and good guys. So that's, I think, what you're asking. How do you tell the truth, how do you get at the truth of a thing without becoming an apologist? Or becoming where it's just a scorched earth policy so that nothing good has happened in the past or all of our idols have feet of clay. Don't you think today, though, too, that I mean, we're like the only way to be credible today is to speak hard truths to your own tribe? God, I hope so. I mean, I feel like that's kind of in short supply, at least in terms of political discourse. We haven't been seeing that. And as a result, I think Republicans and Democrats are, they're too preoccupied with scorching the other side than actually kind of doing the internal work to say like, hey, maybe we need a new script because neither of them is doing particularly well with voters. Right. Owning the libs. Yeah. I mean, it's fascinating to me that somebody like Joe Biden has the same approval rating right now in his presidency that Donald Trump had at this point. And that's not good. You know, it's not good for either of them, but it's definitely not good for America, right? No, because we government in a lot of ways is like TV. You know, we get what we deserve. Yeah. The want better TV, watch better TV. That's right. Want better candidates, vote for better candidates and so forth. So yeah, I was just thinking of Bill Maher when you said that. You know, Bill Maher, he's somewhat famously said, I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me. And now suddenly my news feed is carpet bombed with him saying things that I find myself agreeing with. We're zod. I mean, he's an interesting character who has, I think, started to do work where he's less worried about the other side and is kind of like working through his own, you know, complications. And I think that's a good thing. I think it's certainly a model for media people to be doing rather than just kind of, you know, constantly trying to throw people off balance by attacking the other side. So what's your plan then? I mean, what's the what's the role of?  Do it now, man. Do it. Do it to me because I think this conversation, with your permission, I'm going to share it with my podcast. Yeah, sure. Sure. Yeah.  Well, it's important that everything else looks good. Yeah.  If you want to soar with the Eagles, you must wallow with the pigs. That's right. Yeah. Well, what I was going to ask you about, because my career at Reason, and I'm actually coming up on 30 in October, I've been at Reason for 30 years. Reason was founded in 1968. And in that, you know, in that work span, I've done a lot of different things. I started as an assistant editor. I became editor in chief of the print magazine and of the website. I helped launch our video platform.  And that was interesting. And one of the things that Reason has been able to do over the past 30 years or so is to kind of go with the dispersion of old style media. You know, we work broadly speaking in an industry where there were, you know, three giants, right?  But, you know, there were three continents. Now there are a million different empires, many of which haven't even been mapped yet. And it seems to me your career follows that track too, because you started at places like you mentioned CBS. You worked at QVC, which was really kind of a game changer when it came around. You were on the Discovery channel, which now seems to be an abatement even as Discovery owns like half of the cable, more than a box, right? But cable is also disappearing. And you seem to have found a life, I think you started doing it on Facebook, a kind of direct audience storytelling and whatnot.  Because you are moving into like, you know, wherever the sun is kind of sweeping, you're getting there first. No, I mean, I find that fascinating. Well, you know, thanks. I mean, it does feel sometimes when I look back at it that I was ahead of the curve a little bit. But lately, I've really been feeling like I'm behind it in the sense that cable is contracting. Streaming is just, that's a tiger by the tail. Right. Everything is changing. Certainly the news business is changing. Substack, I think, is going to be a very, very big deal. You know, some of the people here at Freedom Fest, Schellenberger, Matt Taibbi, Barry Weiss, these are the journalists of our time. And they're reporting on a platform that is just growing with more and more credibility.   And it's easier to do that than ever. And it does change, you know, the number of people you reach, the intensity of the relationship. I mean, it has a lot of ripple effects. Yeah, it does. Well, what happened to me really was I lucked out so much in that I was able to keep a foot in both worlds. So I did really well in cable, right. And I've been working for Discovery since 1993. Like you, that's 30 years. You know, I don't know how many different shows. There was only one, well, two big ones, Dirty Jobs and Deadliest Catch. You know, both have been on the air 20 years. You know, one is still in production. So like I've been, I was, you know, I had pitched Deadliest Catch a predator, but it never took off. You know what, I'll talk to your agent if you want, because I think, you know, I think I could sell that. I think there's something there. Yeah. To catch a Deadliest Predator. Oh, that would be very good. I see.   That's right, down under. You did, you did a season in Australia.  Yeah. Yeah. You were looking for the facts of life girl and growing pains. She's not there. I went everywhere. She's not there. But I'll tell you what is there. The same level of curiosity and enthusiasm for this topic. And it did remind me that it's one of the truly universal things people can talk about. So that's where I got lucky. My pop, whose name is now on a bottle of whiskey, gave me some excellent advice. And what it turned into was a chance to ruminate on work. And that changed, this sounds impossibly grand, but it changed cable. Over 30 shows, I could draw a straight line to dirty jobs, right? So it's a, it's this big giant topic. And I never wanted to leave cable because I was prospering in being there. But yeah, seven and a half million people on a Facebook page, you can't ignore. I'm very mindful of that. Did a show for Facebook, did a hundred episodes of returning the favor. But I never did what Dave Rubin is doing. I never did what the guy on the, what is his name, Sean Evans on the Hot Ones, where Rick Beato. I really enjoy those programs. And I've really admired their ability to carve out a platform with no network oversight at all. It's their advertisers. And of course, they're masters at YouTube. You have to be careful. You can blow yourself up still. But in relative terms, it's a much, much more targeted way to reach your audience. You, of course, are doing the same thing, right? Yeah. I mean, it's analogous for short. Here's a question. Do you worry about, and this is something where I think we might be at the right hinge point where I know I don't worry about it that much. Younger people do and older people do, where you'll hear people say, well, you know, we don't have anything in common because everybody is narrow casting. You know, you watch the things that you like, I watch things that I like and everybody else. And like, we have maybe one or two things in common. I don't worry about that, partly because I remember what it was like listening to the AM radio, which in fairness was remarkably diverse. So because if there were six people in the car and maybe one in the trunk, every seven songs had to cycle through every possible audience segment. But having said that, just feeling totally stultified by turning on ABC, NBC and CBS, or just everything was so narrow because it was so like, I don't miss that, but I'm curious, do you miss that kind of common text that we all participate in? Well, I think what I hear you saying is that, well, the thing I miss is the shared experience of many, many millions of people. Like the next day after the Super Bowl, we all have something to talk about. And, you know, must-see TV on Thursday nights. That kind of a point. Who did you miss? Wings, you know? Wings, right. I forgot about it, but you're right. I watched every episode. But yeah, that seems to be missing. So we're in our silos a little bit more, right? But I don't know that it's a, as long as we have something large and big-ish. And on a selfish level, I'm not too worried about it because I, this sounds vanglorious, but I have a brand. You have a brand. After 30 years of doing this, Nick Gillespie is, in my mind, a mix of skepticism and reasonableness. That's your brand, right? Shit. Sorry. And a snappy dresser. Yeah, I was going for like aging backwards, but, you know. Well, Benjamin Button, honest. But that's a broad brand. And it's very much for sale today, because we need, in my view, we need a lot of skepticism. My brand is just more of a good nature to vuncular curiosity around what people do for money and a bit of a philanthropic attempt to assist if I can be of use, right? But those things can apply all over the place. So if you're asking on a business level, on a selfish level, I don't worry at all. If you're asking me as a consumer, then, yeah, I feel, I guess it's like, what do they call it? FOMA, Fear of Missing Out. FOMA, yes. I think we're in the golden age of television right now. This is television. I stumbled across a show not long ago called The Offer, okay? The Making of the Godfather. Right. It's on Paramount Plus. I had to subscribe and I watched it. And it was so daggone good, it made me anxious about what else is out there that I'm missing. And it's a lot. I just watched something called The Jury, which is terrific. Yeah, I have watched that myself. Yeah. Every single person's an actor except one dude on The Jury. And he turns out to be like Jimmy Stewart. Yeah. He restores your faith in humanity. But the breakout star of that, which sounds ridiculous to say, but it's James Marsden, the actor who's already an actor. Who plays a great parody version of, I hope it's a parody version of himself. I hope it is too. I haven't seen it done that well since Matt LeBlanc. Yes. In episodes. That's right. Yeah. Played a version of himself, which is pretty real. Yes. So my point is, there's a weird level of anxiety when you discover how much good stuff there is. How many good bands have you never heard? Yeah. How many great books have you never read? And now how many wonderful podcasts? Yeah.  Yeah. Mine's pretty good. Yours is terrific. Joe Rogan talks for three and a half hours at a time. And there's more listeners at the end than when he started. I mean, that's, this might be why nobody has worked. That's what they're doing. They're just, they're on their screen. They're listening to Rogan. They're not working, but by God. Taking supplements. Or psilocybin. That's not a bad way to be. It's not bad. Yeah. But so where does that end, though? Or, you know, or I guess here's a question for you.  Never ends. Yeah. But what, we are in a funk as a society, I think, like that. And I think back, you know, I've referenced my parents a bit. I can remember them talking about when, you know, the war ended. My father had fought in World War II. He landed in Normandy. He was a Purple Heart recipient, et cetera. But, you know, when, when the war ended, they were like, okay, good. Well, we're not at war anymore, but we're just going to be poor for the rest of our lives because, you know, they grew up poor. Then the Depression hit. And then like during World War II, everything was rationed and, you know, it was like kind of a shitty existence. And they were like, okay, we're just going to, you know, that's what it's going to be. Sure. And then by 1950, they were like, you know what, something had changed. And like, suddenly almost everybody could become middle class or you could rise from where you were. The world got richer. The 50s is a decade filled with anxiety and hysteria, you know, both about juvenile delinquents and homosexuals and civil rights and communists and all this. But people got on with their lives and kind of were enjoying themselves in a way that they hadn't five years before.  Part of it is just things change. But I feel like we're in a funk and we have been for most of this century actually, you know, because of 9-11. I mean, and actually maybe even because of the the tightness of the Gore-Bush election, that kind of like people are like, holy cow, like we are we just making this stuff up, you know, where everything is down to the flip of coin. But then 9-11, you know, the financial crisis, the rise of Trump to some degree, COVID, certainly. How do we, how do we get out of this funk if like a lot of what we've been talking about is like, you know what, there's a lot of really good stuff going on. People have more autonomy. People can choose their adventures. There's more good stuff out there to drink and to watch, you know, and to drop, you name it. But, you know, we're all sour. You start with that. You know, something provocative, like there's never been a better time in the history of the world to be alive and to drink my whiskey then right now. Why wait? No, look, it's an amazing time to be alive.  This is it. And so forth and so forth. You know, you don't want to be Pollyanna about it, but it's important to say that. I also think it's important to know or at least to acknowledge that I agree with every single thing you've said as you look back through that time period. But I would, I'd push back a little and say, I'll find you're 60 years old now, right? I'm about to be. Congratulations. I'll bet you I could find a 60 year old man in any of those periods you described who feels exactly the way you feel now. Because in relative terms, what you've just done is look back and apply your own experience to a timeline that I'm very familiar with. I'm in violent agreement with everything you're saying.  It means nothing to them. They're right where we were when we were 18. When things were pretty screwed up when we were 18. Geopolitically, there were challenges. There were all kinds of things to worry about. For sure. I mean, for me, I think about it. This is why I think the story of the whiskey kind of stuck with me. But my parents were like, oh, well, when I was 21, I went to Normandy and not on vacation. We were poor. We didn't have clothes. We didn't go to college, etc. and that the kind of memory of poverty in America, which was broad based, it gave me like, okay, whatever, however bad things might be, at least I'm not that. But whatever relative analysis you're conducting, you're doing it at a time in your life that is singular. Today, you're at a different time. You've got more experience. You've got all sorts of other things to process. But I will say this, I do think we're in a funk. And part of the funk could be the siloing that we were talking about. Faith Popcorn was, you know her? Yeah, the brand forecaster. Yes. So the Popcorn report predicted trends. And she predicted something called cocooning. Basically, she presaged this time when people would start delivering food to us and we would have less and less reason to leave our homes. And of course, she was awfully right about that. And it changed the size of the homes we live in. It changed all sorts of things. But then I remember she came out and she said cocooning is so 1985. Now it's burrowing. Now we're not just in our cocoons. We're going deep. Because the remote, the access to all of the great entertainment, we've just programmed our whole entire lives. So part of why we're in a funk is probably because we're just inside too much looking at screens. It just could be that simple. We've cocooned ourselves. Yeah. I was going to say that about the screen stuff. One of the things that's interesting is that there's a move that I've been following, which I find really fascinating in the arts in particular, like in painting and sculpture, to really kind of do things that bring the audience out more. Because you can access everything via screens. And it's great. It's liberating. It opens up the world. But more and more people want to be in a room where something is happening around them and with other people. Well, why are we here? I mean, freedom fest. I mean, 5000 people who have something in common want to be together. You can't have a festival alone. I mean, you can, but it's kind of tragic. But that immersive, crowd-based creation of meaning where the art isn't happening on the wall or on the screen. It's happening among the people connecting. Yeah. I find that fascinating. I do too. And I know how enriched and nourished I feel after an experience like that. But you're talking about a funk. Yeah. And I think I remembered now what I wanted to say. It's not a new idea, but it's the collapse of our institutions. And it's the trust. We need to be skeptical. That's why I'm a fan of your brand. But to encourage skepticism today is to encourage a form of denying. And there are a lot of people. This whole Kennedy thing. I'd love to get you to take on him. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has got a lot of people all twisted up in a lot of different ways. And I heard a guy I respect, Sam Harris, making sense. He's got a podcast. And he listened to Kennedy on Rogan and basically said that he wouldn't have him on his podcast, at least not at this point because he didn't want to platform ideas that he believed were fundamentally irresponsible. And I was so struck by that because I think what Sam might be missing in this is this default that we've always had back in the simpler time that you described when the initials behind a person's name really were important. A scientist with bona fides mattered. Expertness mattered. And so the trust that we had in our medical community and in our political class, that was never super high, but it's never been lower than it is now. It's been a straight line decline. Gallup and Pew and a couple other places have been tracking trust and confidence in American institutions, particularly government, for more than 50 years. And it's just almost a straight line decline. That's honestly what I think. And that is, if I may, that I think it's totally legitimate because when you look at, if you take the federal government in Washington, D.C., since 1968 or 1972 or whenever they have done everything possible to abuse our trust and confidence in them. It's like they double-dog dare you. Yeah. And they're like, okay, well, we got away with that. Now what? I mean, the office of the president had more trust and confidence in it when Nixon resigned than it has now and probably for good reason, right? But we can't rest there, right? Because if you go, I write a lot about this, if you go from a high trust society to a low trust society, things fall apart in ways that are horrific, including we vote in more government because everybody's afraid the barbarians are at the gate. So we need something to protect us, which then speeds up things and businesses have acted poorly. Religions, the Catholic Church has not fully come to terms with a massive scandal. And it's like, of course, that erodes social trust and confidence. You trust people less and less. You go out less and less. It's a thousand cuts. Yeah. And we need to kind of have a renaissance, not of stupidity of just like, okay, blind trust. But how do we build up new institutions? And how do we salvage the ones that are going to persist? I think I know part of the answer. But I love this metaphor, though, of a death by a thousand cuts versus a thousand points of light. Those two things fit hand and glove. But geez, I think five years ago, who was the doctor that Kennedy talked about that Rogan invited to come back and debate? Peter Hotez. Okay. Five years ago, had Peter Hotez said, look, I'm an expert. I'm a doctor. I've litigated this. I've looked at this. I'm not going to dignify it. I think a lot of people probably would have nodded and said, oh, okay. Today, I feel like that guy didn't get the memo, right? We just lived through an incredible time when a lot of very certain sounding people made a lot of very dogmatic proclamations that turned out to be dead wrong. Without reservation. This week, don't wear a mask. Next week, wear a mask. The following week, maybe wear a mask, right? It's like me. I'm a narrator. I'm paid to sound certain. So when I narrate how the universe works and tell you that there are 200 billion known galaxies in the universe, I sound like I sound now. And two weeks later, when they call me back in to reread it, because as it turns out, they're two trillion, right? Not a typo, but new tech, new numbers, right? I sound the same. I sound exactly the same as when I'm off by two trillion, as I do when I'm right. So does the president. So does Hotez. So does Joe Rogan. So does Robert Kennedy Jr. So this whole love affair with certainty and this whole thing that Sam Harris was saying, it's like you guys have to understand that there is no good will left. Reasonable people who embrace a level of skepticism that I personally espouse have every right to look at your credentials and go persuade me. So I want Hotez or somebody to step up. And that's my answer to your question. We're in a funk because the rug has been pulled out from under the expert class. And the experts are not making a fundamentally persuasive case for the rest of us. Instead, they and their apologists are saying, we're not going to dignify that with a debate. Well, I'm sorry. I don't think that plays in Peoria anymore. Not today. That sounded certain. That's a very good note to end on, I think. I think you're absolutely correct in that it isn't, you know, there are ways to rebuild trust and confidence. We do this individually in our lives all the time. Yes, we can do it societally. We can do it in our institutions. It's, you know, in the beginning of that turner and I think in comes in acknowledging the limits of our knowledge and when we're wrong. And then how do we go about doing a better job? And look, you play a role in this, Nick. I mean, I really I know in driving down trust and confidence in almost everything.  You know, it's an opportunity because people are going to look, I think, for something that feels, I don't know if it's honest or authentic, but tribes need to hear the truth from their own tribesmen. And that's what I meant before. Here we are. Here I am encouraging a more skeptical worldview at a time when experts are telling me, don't be skeptical. Just still take our word for it. That is a recipe for some kind of collision. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, you know, this is also a whole other galaxy to talk about. But, you know, we're living in an age of forced transparency where the truth is going to come out, whether you like it or not. You might as well get ahead of it and just kind of admit what you know and what you don't know, what you're not certainly sure about, et cetera, and get on with figuring out how to live a better, more interesting life. I just want to tell you about Steve Forbes. Yes, please. Who's outside. Okay. So like 10 years ago. By the way, don't give him any cash. He just spends it on booze. Well, I'll tell you what else he did. He says he wants by a hot dog, but he doesn't. 10 years ago, I really showed my slip and wrote some invective about the madness of ranking the top universities year after year after year, again and again and again.  But if we're going to do it, how come nobody ever rates the best trade schools? Well, Forbes magazine printed a lot of what I spewed up and said, Mike Rowe has a point. And ever since they've been ranking the top 30 trade schools. And that's a hopeful note to end on because that's, in my world, that's part of what has to happen. Although he always still puts Princeton at the top because that's where he went. You know what? Some of my favorite welders came out of Princeton, talented women. Thank you so much. Really fun. Appreciate it.


This is gonna be walked through a power factor correction. We're gonna have some loads some inductive loads That's gonna give us a crappy power factor You're gonna see that we're gonna have a high current and then what we're gonna do is we're gonna throw a capacitor in there That's gonna improve a power factor and we're gonna see how our current is gonna drop like it's hot So just to get started here, we have a system that's got 480 volts. That's my supply voltage right there I got these three motor loads here. You can tell from the drawings now each of these motor loads I've given you different variables. So we're gonna go step-by-step what to do with each one of these This one's a five horsepower motor this little end here That means it has an efficiency of 79 percent a power factor of 56 percent over on this guy here It's got 13 kilowatts of true power with a phase angle of 60 degrees and over here It is got 21 k bar of inductive Power what was power being used with the power factor 71% and this little guy here. That's the power factor Capacitor that we'll be putting in there to fix it all up. So let's take a look what we're gonna be dealing with what we're gonna be looking for What we're gonna do is we're gonna go through and we're gonna figure out what our initial line current is and what our power Factor is of the entire circuit of all of this So we're gonna add all these guys up in parallel to figure out what our line is and line current and our line power factor After that, we're gonna figure out what size of this capacitor needs to be To correct the power factor to 95 percent again, we're gonna walk through every single step on the way and After we put in that power factor capacitor, we're gonna figure out what our new current is It's gonna change everything Okay, let's get started here Again, what we're gonna do is we're gonna take each one of these branches and the method I use is I create a triangle for each branch So let's get started here. We'll start with this guy over here Now before we get started, we're gonna have to figure out what the true power of this guy is we can do that using this horsepower here You add horsepower and this efficiency will give us a number we can use Again, we're always gonna be basing it off of power. We're gonna be building these power triangles now we've got to remember that for Efficiency efficiency is output over input this five horsepower that we've got here That is our output and we know that for one horsepower is 746 watts, right? We should all know that by this point. Let's take a look how this is all gonna play out There's that formula efficiency is output over input and we want the electrical input to put out that five horsepower output our first step is gonna be turning that horse power into power We're gonna take five horsepower times 746 watts and that gives us 3730 watts Now we're gonna plug in what we know so far. We know that we have an output power of 3730 watts. We know our efficiency is 79 percent or point seven nine and we are trying to figure out what our input is We do a little transposition razzle dazzle here We're gonna cross multiply point seven nine times input is equal to 3730 Then of course you want to get input alone So we have to divide the point seven nine out of there point seven nine We divide that outside as well. Whatever we do to one side we have to do the other So our input is going to be three thousand seven hundred and thirty watts divided by seventy nine percent or point seven nine and then we just Discover we've worked out that our input is actually four thousand seven hundred and twenty one point five watts Which is a number we're going to be using for the triangle. So let's go back and take a look at that circuit Okay, so I have built the triangle here What I've done is I take four point seven kilowatts and I've taken this power factor this power factor I've talked to another previous lessons power factor and angle are very closely related You can take the power factor in inverse coset to get the angle That's where I get that thirty eight or degrees from I went point five six inverse cos gave me thirty eight degrees Then from there I can use that and that and tangent to figure out my three point six k var is I'm not going to go into detail how the tangent works at this point I would expect you to know how that trigonometry works, but it's opposite over adjacent equals So we can work out these two guys here now. I've got four point seven kilowatts on the bottom three point six k var On the side. I don't really need to work out what this is at this point I could if I wanted to figure out what the current was through this branch But what we're going to be doing is we're going to be working out our kilowatts and our bars And then we're going to be adding them all up and creating one triangle to rule them all over there Let's take a look at our second branch now With our second branch. I see that I've got 13 kilowatts, which I'm going to throw on the bottom of the triangle I'm going to take again the angle using tangent and work out that I get twenty two point five k bar on the side Now let's work out this third branch right here in the third branch I put 21 k bar on the side all reactive components go on the side using this angle here I am tangent again. I can figure out that I have 21 kilowatts on the bottom Now I've worked out all three of these guys what we're going to do is we're going to take all three of these guys And add these three triangles together. I'm going to add up all my watts together to get an overall wattage on one side I'm going to add up all my bars on that side to get my overall bars together Then I'm going to work out my overall KVA Boom there you go. I went four point seven plus thirteen plus twenty one gives me thirty eight point seven kilowatts I went three point six plus twenty two point five plus twenty one gave me forty seven point one k bar Using the power of Pythagoras this squared plus this squared gives the square root of that at sixty one KVA With that now I worked out that my angle is fifty one degrees just using you can use sine cosine tangent whatever you want Okay, let's move that triangle up there now with fifty one degrees that doesn't help us out with our power factor What we need to do is figure out what our power factor is and just like I talked about over here How power factor and angle are close related the same thing is true over here You can just take the cost of fifty one Degrees is equal to point six three That's all you have to do is the cost of that angle gives you the power factor sixty three percent lagging and there you go our next steps going to be to figure out what the current is our Current is just going to be this KVA divided by this voltage 61 KVA divided by 480 volts will give us our line current of 127 amps There you have it with no power factor correction capacitor in there We are looking at 127 amps of current source current flowing there We didn't like that's what we did is I've got my two triangles here. I have a triangle that we have This is what we've already dealt with here. We got thirty eight point seven K. R. We got this We've got that now we want to improve our power factor. We were at sixty three percent We want to improve our power factor over to ninety five percent The one thing that's not going to change because the resistance in the circuit will not change is This so we're going to take this guy the thirty eight point seven kilowatts over to the triangle that we want That's the triangle we want now With this guy here and this guy here. We're going to work out this side and this side Again, I'm not going to go into the trigonometry of it because by this point I imagine you guys are all experts at trigonometry if you're not go back and watch the videos on trig now using 95% What I've done my little quick trip Trick is I take this divided by this gives me this and that works every single time your kilowatts divided by your power factor gives You a KVA then I use Pythagoras that squared minus that squared gives you the square root of that and that gives us the triangle that we want Now we have forty seven point one K bar. We want twelve point six K bar So we need a capacitor that's going to take this guy and drive it down until we get there Remember that capacitive power and inductive power opposite So all we have to do is we take the forty seven point one minus the twelve point six, which is thirty four point five K bar It's going to take a thirty four point five K bar capacitor to push this all the way down till it hits twelve point six K bar This is the size of capacitor we need to improve our power factor to ninety five percent Yeah, let's look at the circuit again here So we now know that over here this capacitor has to be sized for thirty four point five K bar This is now our triangle that we have it was the one that we let me go back a second and talk back what we had This used to be sixty three percent now. It's ninety five percent. So the triangle that we wanted is now the triangle that it becomes We have forty point seven KVA on that side Which means that if we want to work out the current same as before all we have to do is take this KVA And divide it by this voltage and we get our new line current forty point seven KVA divided by four hundred and eighty volts Gives us eighty four point eight amps, which is a significant difference. We have dropped quite a bit Just as a reminder we used to be drawing a hundred and twenty seven amps We are now drawing eighty four point eight amps That's a significant difference if you ask me well if you ask anybody really go ask your mother She'll tell you the same thing. We were running this whole system at a hundred and twenty seven amps We put in this capacitor now this capacitor has now dropped the current to eighty four point eight amps these motors They're still running. They're still doing the exact same thing You won't hear anything happen with these things They'll do the same work because a true power has not changed all we've done is we've taken this inductive power here And we've driven it down until it's hit twelve point six K bar. That's power factor correction and that's a walk-through


Hello everyone. Myself Prithviraj Pithambay working as an assistant professor in Department of Electronics Engineering at Valgination of Technology, Swalapur. Let us learn today, finite state machines. At the end of this session, you will be able to examine the structures of finite state machines and their state diagrams and mainly we will discuss the structures of Moore state machine and Mill state machine. So what are the state machines? So state machines are composed of some conventional and sequential logic circuits. State machines represents a digital system as a set of states. So state machines are associated with some inputs and they give some outputs. The states transits from one state to another states depending upon the input and the present states. So this state transitions are totally controlled or synchronized by a clock signal. So machine always has some finite number of states. A machine is defined by specifying the number of inputs and outputs, initial states from where the state machine starts, the present state and the next state because of the applied input. So this is the general structure of a state machine. So you will see here a next state combinational logic circuit and output combinational logic circuit. So these two blocks are pure combinational logic blocks. The state machine whereas sequential circuit, the output of the state machine is synchronized by a clock signal. So external inputs are applied to the next state combinational circuit as well as the present state is also applied to this next state combinational logic. So output of a combinational circuit are the excitation inputs to the state machine. So that state machine changes its current state to the next state. Input combinational logic sometimes accepts external inputs but always accept the present state as another input. So in some state machines you may find that the external input is not present but the present state is always there. So let us calculate the number of distinct states this state memory can have. So state memory is nothing but a set of n flip-flops which are used to store current state of the machine. So obviously the number of states are related to the number of flip-flops used. So the relation is 2 raised to n. So for example with the 2 flip-flops total number of distinct states can be maximum 4. So state machine with n number of flip-flops can be used to store 2 raised to n distinct states. So now let us concentrate on the next state combinational logic output. So next state excitation inputs are totally depends on the present state and the external input applied. So these excitation inputs to the state memory are a totally function of present state and external input whereas this output of the state machine is a function of present state and external input. State machine state diagram. So you can represent the state diagram for state machine by drawing state transition diagram. So if you observe particularly for this example we have 4 states and state transit from one state to another state depending upon the number depending upon the external input applied. At the same time the output also changes. So state machine is made up of states and their transition because of the external inputs. So let us learn the structure of Moore state machine. So here again we have next state combinational logic circuit and output combinational logic circuit with state memory to store the current state of the state machine. So here the next state excitation inputs are functions of present state and external inputs whereas the output of a combinational circuit only depends on the present state. So instead of external input the output of combinational logic only depends on the present state. This is how you can draw the state diagram for a Moore state machine. So if we observe the output of Moore state machine is totally depends on the present state. So in the state diagram you will observe that each state has its own output. So here the state transition depends on the external input and whenever there is a state change output may change. So on the arrows you will see that only inputs are mentioned whereas the outputs are mentioned inside the state itself. Next state machine is a Milestate machine. So again the next state excitation inputs in the Milestate machines are depends on external inputs as well as present state whereas the output of a Milestate machine is now depends on present state as well as on the external inputs whereas in Moore state machine the output only depends on the present state. So that is the difference between these two state machines. So let us see one example. So the state diagram of a mod 4 counter is shown here. So mod 4 counter with a reset input and one output which shows that the end of the count. So mod 4 means we have total four total distinct states. So this counter starts counting from zero zero as a initial state then it goes to zero one then one zero then one one then again back to zero zero. So whenever the external input that is reset is zero the counter is always incrementing. When the external input reset is one counter goes back to the reset state from the state zero one one zero and one one. Also observe the output whenever the counter is in the counting phase the output is always zero but when counter changes from one one to zero zero that is the last transition output changes from zero to one which indicates that counter will start again from zero zero. So here you can observe that the output depends on the present state and the applied input. So instead of showing the output inside the state the outputs are shown on the transition. So this is an example of Millistate machine for a four bit two bit counter. These are the textbooks you can refer for the further reading. Thank you.


Everybody for us here ripping two boxes for Michael H. Thanks, Michael You got a twenty one twenty two Chronicles basketball hobby and a twenty twenty two Bowman first edition baseball start with that Bowman first edition Here we go, buddy His uh, Werner Herzog Super Fracture Auto 10-10 Salinas you got a Hendry Mendez first Aqua Send Quentin first Aqua warming Bernabell is it Kyle? Triana you got Aqua Ed Howard first Aqua Brian Bayo There's one more after this and then yours Your second after this one tile Let's go Kyle first Aqua Brandon Yoruba. Where's all the numbered cards at first Aqua Anthony Rodriguez? Yeah, he did Jackson Shorio There we go. There's a choreo Got his autos coming up and and uh Bowman Chrome on a rep row. I laid out the cruise Pretty dope Rocking it Tuesday night. What do we got here? We got to ten Mackay backstrom Very nice first Bowman Nine of ten first Bowman Mackay backstrom code dolphins baby. Let's go Grats on that one Michael. I took the Top box off the shelf basically Yep, Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen have autos Ian Lewis first yellow 15 of 75 This is for Michael H First Aqua Jackson Shorio really good box here. I lead the other cruise Gotta happen someone right I'm sure the flies my goal What's up, man Aqua Luciano Aqua first Bowman Benjamin Bailey Henry Mendes always throws me off I always think it's Jackson Shorio First Aqua Luis Verdugo First Aqua Alan Serta. Got a Tyler Soderstrom Gold 36 out of 50 Aqua. Ellie De La Cruz. Nice Geez Nose just feels like I don't feel congested What so ever Start on everyone away Chronicles basketball now hubs. Good luck, man. See you 101 K to come on Corey Kispert to 21 on the titanium nice Jalen Green essentials Marquis Kaminga Luca got a Kim Elijah one on the basketball hall of fame out of 25. Nice a keem rant Box here Duarte Reeves and orange Giannis to 75 essentials 75th anniversary on us green Scotty Lewis to 99 rookie Phoenix auto Not the cleanest auto Off the sticker there a bit Got timeless treasures to 149 Mavericks if it's an eBay link you can drop us fine Tram and crusade thunder To 149 always best asked for mission though The video now probably not then green bones Highland rookie silver crusade Yeah, definitely not have another breaker All right, that'll do it. Thanks again Michael Appreciate it, buddy. We'll get those out to you