First episode of Risky Business podcast
Caitlin Clark, RFK Jr., and poker final tables
It’s turning into a busy week here. I have a post for you on Biden’s debate tactics, and another on the false consensus effect and how it can skew people’s views on what the public really thinks about issues like Israel-Palestine. Also, I’m finally taking some tangible steps to get the 2024 election model ready, interviewing finalists for the position I’m hiring — and later today, I may even (gasp) write a few lines of code.
But today is launch day for Risky Business, the new podcast I’m cohosting with Maria Konnikova. We discussed life lessons from playing final tables at poker tournaments, how much impact RFK Jr. will have on the election, and whether Caitlin Clark is underpaid. (Yes, she is — although Maria and I disagree about why.)
You can find a YouTube version below, or hear us wherever you listen to podcasts (e.g. Spotify, Apple Podcasts).
This is a weekly show, with new episodes usually dropping on Thursdays. Ratings and reviews are always helpful at this early stage, and please let us know if you’re encountering technical glitches on any of the platforms. I hope you’ll take a listen.
Curious if you'd be open to including timecodes in the descriptions for future episodes that show where you cover different topics. I want to hear the discussions on RFK Jr and Caitlin Clark, but... I'm not all that interested in poker (sorry).
I find the WNBA/Clark dynamic fascinating because it reveals both the power of collective bargaining and its limitations. Professional sports are the kind of situation where unionizing is best suited: labor creates a tremendous amount of the value, but teams have disproportionate power because positions are so scarce and careers are so short. It’s also a situation where working conditions matter tremendously more to labor than team (e.g. medical treatment, quality facilities, etc.).
But, the WNBA is a start-up league where success is far from assured. The only way that the WNBA will reach its potential is for stars like Clark to get it there. Teams’ and players’ incentives are strongly aligned - even bench players depend on starts to elevate the WNBA so that the pool of money grows. A smarter labor union would have fought for pay structures like a startup: equity stakes or the equivalent for stars who increase viewership, regardless of whether they’re a rookie or not. But labor unions are averse to trying to make the league more successful, taking a zero-sum view of the world. The future of the WNBA is so tenuous that would be crazy for players to get the 50/50 split that NBA players receive — especially as the the fixed costs of running a team aren’t that different between men’s and women’s basketball — but creating ways for teams and players to more dynamically share risk and reward would help everybody.
This feels like a failure of imagination on both sides.
PS - although I’m an avowed capitalist, I’m baffled by conservative positions that are per se anti-union. Firms aggregate supply of resources to increase their negotiating power - why can’t people organize to do the same? That’s capitalism at its finest. I’d sympathize a position of: I’m fine with unions, but I don’t support the government passing laws that force companies to allow them to organize. But I’ve never heard it articulated by anybody.