Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With NATO Former Deputy Secretary General, Lecturer, Stanford University And Former U.S. Under Secretary For Arms Control And Intelligence Security Rose Gottemoeller, Interview With The Atlantic CEO Nicholas Thompson; Interview With The Wall Street Journal Reporter Emily Glazer; Interview With Harvard's Opportunity Insights Director And Harvard University Professor Of Economic Raj Chetty. Aired 1-1:45p ET
Aired August 08, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): As you know, the Kyiv regime has undertaken another large-scale provocation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Ukraine raises the stakes after Russia accuses it of launching a massive attack into its territory. We get the latest.
And anti-racism protesters counter far-right riots in the U.K. But as disinformation continues to spread online, I asked journalists Emily Glazer
and Nicholas Thompson about what governments can do.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJ CHETTY, DIRECTOR, HARVARD'S OPPORTUNITY INSIGHTS AND PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: The landscape of opportunity is changing
quite a bit in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- reaching that American dream. Our Hari Sreenivasan speaks with economist Raj Chetty, director of Harvard's Opportunity Insights
Initiative, about achieving mobility in today's America.
Plus, as the Olympics reach the finish line, I ask sports columnist Christine Brennan about whether Paris delivered.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
A massive attack by Ukraine, that is how Russia describes a daring incursion by Ukrainian troops into its Kursk region. The extent of the
attack remains unclear, but this is what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): And now, first of all, I address our Ukrainian warriors, our soldiers, sergeants,
officers and generals. Everyone sees that the Ukrainian army can surprise, and it can achieve results.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And while Russia claims it has stopped the incursion, evidence from the ground suggests fighting is ongoing. Now, this comes as Russia
forces creep even closer to the strategically important city of Pokrovsk in Eastern Ukraine, threatening a vital supply line for Kyiv.
So, what is the strategy here for Ukraine and what is the United States, a key ally of Kyiv, make of this? Rose Gottemoeller is the former NATO deputy
secretary general and she joins me now from Mountain View, California. Rose, welcome to the program. Thank you so much.
So, this seemed to catch everybody by surprise, and that Russia claims that they have stopped this incursion. We don't have confirmation of that. And
this now appears to be entering its third day. We've seen since August 6th that Russia has lost at least 350 square miles of its territory. Reports
are that a few to 1,000 soldiers took part in this. That's coming from Russia. It appears that the evidence suggests that that's much larger, that
Ukraine has committed units from at least four elite brigades.
What do you make of this move? And is it daring or risky or too risky, as I should quote, some in the industry now in military officials say for
Ukraine to be making.
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO, LECTURER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND FORMER U.S. UNDER SECRETARY FOR ARMS CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE SECURITY: Well, it's interesting Zelenskyy's remarks that the armed forces of Ukraine know how to surprise. Actually, the Kyiv government
has been keeping a strict silence on this operation, which is very interesting. It's what we know we've been hearing from TASS and from the
Russians, but also, of course, from our independent satellite scrutiny of what's going on the ground.
So, it's very interesting, though, that the Ukrainians are neither confirming nor denying just a little hint from Zelenskyy about how good his
troops are. And I think that is important because to my mind, what the Ukrainians are trying to do is knock the Russians off balance at a time
when the Russians have felt that they have had the initiative in their summer offensive.
So, this is clearly trying to insert some uncertainty on the Russian side and force them to draw troops to the Kursk region.
GOLODRYGA: But we also know that aside from the element of surprise that Russia can afford to lose more troops than Ukraine can. And given if this
actually is true, that there are at least four elite brigades here. Is it wise to commit such a large-scale number of troops for Ukraine at a time
when their front lines are really spread thin?
GOTTEMOELLER: I can't second guess the decision making of either President Zelenskyy or the high command in Kyiv. But I would say the fact that they
have committed a seasoned troops to this operation is a sign that they feel a certain confidence that they can harry the Russians in a way that will
blow -- give a blow to the morale in Moscow and among the Russian armed forces. But also, I think send some important messages about Ukrainian
resolve to continue fighting this fight.
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: We know that previous incursions were usually led by the Ukrainian military intelligence or militant Russian exile groups. The fact
that these appear to be Ukrainian soldiers suggests that this is a different strategy here and this is an incursion of a different scale. Do
you anticipate that we'll see more incursions like this in the weeks and months to come?
GOTTEMOELLER: It's hard for me to say, but I will take note of this important anniversary time. This is the anniversary of the famous World War
II battle around -- in and around the Kursk salient. And both, of course, Ukrainian and Russian soldiers remember this very well. The history of that
battle is that it was a major turning point in that war as the Russians, at the time, the Soviet troops defeated the Nazis and Hitler began the process
of the slow withdrawal from the Soviet Union.
So, I think this is an echo that both sides will remember very well. This is sacred ground, so to say. So, I do think that there's an enormous
symbolism in what the Ukrainians are doing. Also, the fact that they are attacking in and around the last point of gas transit from Russia to
Ukraine shows that they have a certain, I will say, confidence in their ability to really cause pain to the Russians.
GOLODRYGA: It's notable that Vladimir Putin also weighs specific dates and anniversaries and symbolism heavily as well. So, this is no doubt a knock
to him. He's called this already a large-scale provocation and taken an extra step by suggesting that Ukraine has been targeting civilians as well
indiscriminately. Again, we don't have any confirmation of what actually is happening on the ground, but take a listen to what Vladimir Putin said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PUTIN (through translator): As you know, the Kyiv regime has undertaken another large-scale provocation. It's conducting indiscriminate shelling
with various types of weaponry, including missiles, of civilian buildings, residential buildings, and ambulances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What we do know is that Russia does have a history of indiscriminate shellings and targeting of civilian infrastructure in areas.
In terms of a retaliatory response, are you concerned of what that may look like and fears of that escalating even more?
GOTTEMOELLER: Well, I think the Ukrainians are somewhat inured to these kinds of threats from the Kremlin because every day they are taking attacks
against civilian targets throughout Ukraine, even in the far west of the country, long-range Russian missiles are striking at civilian targets.
I was just reading this morning that in response, apparently, to these strikes inside Russia, there were many, many drone attacks in the Sumy
Oblast, which is the Ukrainian territory just adjacent to the Kursk region. And in those attacks, again, in a schoolyard, a young man and his six-year-
old brother were killed.
So, you know, it's the case that the Ukrainians have been seeing these attacks every day of this war. And so, they are somewhat inured to them.
But I do see the fact that they are using these elite troops and they seem to be going after military objectives.
From what we can tell again from overhead that it's not an attack that is focused on civilian targets. It seems to be very much focused on going
after military objectives.
GOLODRYGA: It appears the White House had no prior knowledge to this attack and has asked for more information and would like to seek more
details from Kyiv specifically. What do you make about that fact, that Kyiv's largest benefactor apparently had no idea and no warning ahead of
time before an incursion like this, specifically given that the United States had been quite cautious early on in this war about even the use of
U.S. provided and western provided military aid targeting Russian targets?
GOTTEMOELLER: Well, first of all, I think the Ukrainians are respecting the constraints that Washington has placed on them for using long-range
NATO supplied missiles and other equipment on Russian targets. I do think that they are being quite cautious in that regard.
But throughout, you mentioned earlier, this period when we have seen some attacks by irregular forces, SBU, that is the Ukrainian security forces
inside Russian territory. The Ukrainians have maintained a strict, neither confirm nor deny approach from Kyiv, a silence from Kyiv.
So, in some ways, it doesn't surprise me. I know it's frustrated Washington officials in the past that they get taken by surprise, but Kyiv is, I
think, being consistent with the way they have handled these attacks in the past.
GOLODRYGA: After --
GOTTEMOELLER: I don't doubt, however, now that they are talking to Washington because Washington's been asking.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we heard that that statement there from Volodymyr Zelenskyy not confirming what we've been reporting, but obviously touching
on it and the element of surprise there from Ukraine. After a long delay, we were started to see western assistance, in particular the United States
military aid coming through to Ukraine, specifically now just in the last few days, F-16s. Is it too soon to tell what difference, if any, they're
making?
GOTTEMOELLER: Well, I think, for one thing, we are hearing from the Russians that they are planning to shoot them down as quickly as possible.
And Putin's been bragging that they will be on display of captured NATO military equipment in Moscow before too long.
So, I know that the Ukrainians and their -- the NATO countries who have been training them on the F-16s have been working very hard to ensure that
they understand the defensive capabilities of those aircraft that they will and are able to defend themselves. But I do think -- and we've seen some
reports today of F-16s beginning to fly over Kherson region. I think that we will soon begin to see what effect these important fighter aircraft can
have on the situation, on the ground, and at the front in Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: What specifically will you be looking for in terms of their effectiveness in the weeks and months to come? Because, you know, out of
all of military equipment, the F-16s early on in this war had been really highlighted as something from Volodymyr Zelenskyy and from other Ukrainian
military experts there that they really needed.
GOTTEMOELLER: Right. Well, the Ukrainians have done a lot to deny the Russians air superiority over Ukraine. The Russians don't dare to fly their
own fighter aircraft on -- into Ukrainian airspace and the same with helicopter forces. But I think that the F-16 fighters and other fighter
aircraft available to the Ukrainians ensure that Ukraine itself can start to supply or provide for more control of the airspace over Ukraine.
And that's important for their own troops to be able to operate on the ground and to effectively begin to push back against the Russian advance.
And so, I do think from that perspective that they will be a very important asset for the Ukrainians.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll continue to watch closely. Thank you so much, Rose Gottemoeller, for your time. We appreciate it.
GOTTEMOELLER: You're welcome.
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, what would you do if someone predicted a civil war in your own country, or what if someone with a social media megaphone with
an audience that's nearly 370 million strong said that? That's exactly the dilemma facing Britain's new Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The U.K. has been rocked by far-right and racist riots in the past week, targeting Muslims and minority communities all turbocharged by
misinformation about three young girls who were tragically stabbed to death in a dance class last month.
The billionaire owner of X, Elon Musk, added fuel to the fire. Talking about a civil war. And now, this behavior isn't new for Musk. He's also
been at it in the U.S., where he shared a deepfake of Kamala Harris. I spoke about it all earlier with Emily Glazer of The Wall Street Journal and
Nicholas Thompson of The Atlantic.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) \ GOLODRYGA: Emily Glazer, Nicholas Thompson, thank you so much for joining us. So, this is a story that unfortunately didn't get enough attention, I
think, here in the United States. These riots that unfolded in the U.K., quite alarming and a big test for a new prime minister and his new
government. And obviously, we have the element of social media as well.
And Nicholas, let me start with you. Because here you have Elon Musk weighing in to what's unfolding on the streets in the U.K. and saying,
civil war is inevitable. That was met with a response from the U.K. prime minister's office saying there was no justification for these comments.
What do you make of it? And what does it add to the level of confusion, I would say, and at times irresponsibility at the hands of someone as
powerful as Elon Musk?
NICHOLAS THOMPSON, CEO, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, Elon Musk has two roles here. He's a participant, tweeting his own things, you know, adding his voice
into these conversations. And then, as owner of a platform, which he is shaping to more and more align with his political views.
What's happening in social media is there's always been this really interesting tradeoff between privacy, safety, and free speech, and every
platform kind of chooses a position and Musk is really tilting away from safety. Really tilting in another direction and finding a different spot.
And as a result, the benefits that come from that, but they're also a lot of costs as we see from time to time like this past week.
GOLODRYGA: Emily, why don't you weigh in? What are the benefits you think from this type of behavior? And obviously, you know, I think it's pretty
fair to say we've seen what the cost can be.
[13:15:00]
EMILY GLAZER, REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I do think a lot of people in the United States and elsewhere believe in free expression. So, I
guess if we're looking for a benefit, that could be one. But the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, has changed significantly. I was thinking
back to the 2020 election when Twitter and other platforms were rolling out even more measures to curb the spread of mis and disinformation.
You know, up until -- right before the election, Twitter was putting labels on information that was spreading, anything that could incite violence and
cite hateful speech, and they had found then, and it was, you know, a company under different ownership. I think they labeled roughly 300,000
posts and that it significantly decreased the spread of that type of information.
That's obviously changed as Elon Musk has brought this company. You know, it's private. He's running it. He's shaping the activities. Britain does
have, you know, a certain regulation that I believe is going into effect later this year that is meant to curb the spread of information that
incites violence online. So, it'll be interesting to see how that could change what's happening here. But we're certainly seeing a very different
platform than we did, you know, a year or two or three years ago.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And, Nick, that regulation that was just mentioned there by Emily is Britain's Online Safety Act. It was years in the making, and
here's what it says. Platforms will have the duty to take robust actions against illegal content. That includes content that incites violence or
which is related to racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses. Failing to meet these obligations could see social media firms
face fines of up to 18 million pounds or 10 percent of their worldwide revenue by media regulators.
Do you think this is something that Elon Musk take seriously?
THOMPSON: Well, I think he will have to take it seriously. I mean, all of these platforms, ultimately, they espouse these, you know, very strong
principles, and then they have to comply with the law. They have to comply with it in Europe, which obviously has extremely robust regulations. Now,
they'll have to comply with it with the new U.K. regulations. So, he will push back. He will fight. He will say this is censorship. But ultimately,
there will be a balance where he has to comply.
I do also want to add that it's not just Twitter and X that are amplifying, what's been happening and causing the riots. A lot of it, it seems, is
going through Telegram, which, like X, chooses a spot where it really prioritizes end to end encryption and has very little work on trust and
safety, certainly compared to what we were just discussing, the way it was done four or five years ago, when all of the platforms had robust trust and
safety teams.
GOLODRYGA: And remind us again, Nick, who the owner of Telegram is.
THOMPSON: Well, the owner of Telegram, you know, was born in Russia. But it doesn't so much matter who the owner is. I mean, it does matter who the
owner is. It really matters the culture that develops and Telegram has developed, very much, a free speech, minimal censorship, minimum work on
trust and safety ethos.
So, direct communications, totally encrypted. And we have total encryption, that's good, right? It helps dissidents. There's a lot of privacy benefits.
But on the other hand, you can't hunt out the stuff that isn't something violence or helping terrorists.
GLAZER: I would just add that it does matter also if it's a public or private company. A lot of this information, as Nick mentioned, it's
shifting to smaller platforms that are also not public companies. So, they don't have, you know, big institutional investors, you know, pressuring
them to make sure they're complying with regulations. A lot of them, if they do break anything, they'll pay the fine, they'll move on.
And I would say from reporting on Elon Musk for many years, he'll pay the fine, it's pennies to them if they do get fined, and move on. It doesn't
have, you know, the same type of impact.
GOLODRYGA: Let's shift to the U.S. election here, Nick, because Elon Musk has put his thumb on the scale for Donald Trump. That happened right after
that assassination attempt a few weeks ago. Now, we know Donald Trump said on Truth Social that he's going to be doing an interview with Elon on
Monday. And these two go back, they have a rather, I don't know, contentious at times and at times that they seem to be getting along in
terms of their relationship.
Remember, before Elon Musk bought the platform, Donald Trump was kicked off. He hasn't been back on Twitter, though I think he has the opportunity
to if he would like. What do you make of this relationship as it is right now and the fact that you have the owner of one of the world's most
influential online sites really being quite honest in public about who he's supporting in this race? Does that matter?
THOMPSON: Yes. I think it definitely matters. I think that it will change the reputation of Twitter. If I owned a massive online platform, I would
stay out of politics. If you want your platform to be a public town square, it is probably better if people feel like they can express any opinion, and
the owner doesn't share one very specific view. But that is a different view from what Musk has.
[13:20:00]
The actual relationship between Musk and Trump is very confusing. They both have extremely idiosyncratic, hard to place politics. You know, Musk is now
viewed as this edge lord figure of the right, but this is a man who has done more to combat climate change than any other inventor in America. He
clearly, as he said, I believe it was in the Lex Fridman Podcast, he talked about Trump's masculinity, anger, standing up for America, but I wouldn't
be surprised if Musk's politics flip back.
And I also think some of Musk's regard for Trump was due to his tension with Biden, over Biden's comments about electric cars and excluding Tesla.
So, it's very, very complicated. But I think the bottom line is X would feel more like the thing Musk says he wants it to feel like, which is an
open town square, if Musk would stay quiet on big political issues.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, Musk has really proven himself to be quite mercurial, to say the least. Let me switch finally, Emily, to A.I. and what appears to be
a nastier back and forth between Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who's the co- founder of OpenAI. These two used to work together. Now, Elon Musk has filed another lawsuit against him, basically claiming OpenAI was always
meant to be a nonprofit, but then pulled a 180 and went into business with Microsoft. What does this all mean, if anything?
GLAZER: Yes, let's take a step back. Elon Musk runs or is very highly involved in six companies. One of the newest ones is xAI, his own A.I.
company. So, part of this is competition. OpenAI has exploded, you know when ChatGPT launched in November of 2022. I think a lot of people could
not anticipate, you know, how much it's become pervasive with a number of people throughout the world. And Elon Musk is a competitor. There are
questions about whether these lawsuits are really about who gets the business and A.I.
And I think you could turn toward his support of Donald Trump and wonder alongside with Trump's VP pick, J. D. Vance, who have said that they're
going to be much softer on A.I. regulation. And so, I think a lot of Musk's tilts toward politics, you have to think there's an underlying business
decision. And so, as he has these lawsuits, you know, now the second one with Sam Altman and OpenAI, there's this broader picture of what is A.I.
regulation look like, who are the winners and losers in A.I., and I don't think Elon Musk wants to lose out with xAI, his own company.
GOLODRYGA: Nick, quickly, do you support that view? Because there had been some people scratching their heads as to why all of a sudden there had been
this libertarian real push from the Silicon Valley bros., as they were called, Peter Thiel, and others who had supported the Trump ticket as well.
Do you think it's because they're anticipating looser regulations?
THOMPSON: I don't think it's just because they're supporting looser regulations. I think that's part of it. I think looser regulations for
crypto are very important. Many of them have large portfolios, but I do think of it as just a political shift and in some ways, a backlash to what
they view as the overwhelming and, you know, overwhelming politics in the places where many of them live in San Francisco, Los Angeles.
You know, a lot of Elon Musk's turn against the left and turn towards the right is a backlash is what he publicly perceives as the local politics of
the city he lived in. So, I do think that some of it is tactical. I do think some of it is financially motivated. And I do think that some of it
is just genuine politics and alignment.
Still, though, I think the majority of Silicon Valley probably supports the Democratic Party, but there is a very interesting split, as you pointed
out.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, you can say this for Elon Musk, so he puts his money where his mouth is, both SpaceX and now X itself, right, have relocated as he
threatened to do.
THOMPSON: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: It's not all doom and gloom, especially in light of concerns, Nick, that we have had for a number of years about the state of democracy
around the world, in particular here in the U.S. as we approach another presidential election, very contentious one, and the role social media may
or may not play. Talk about why you're not as pessimistic as others.
THOMPSON: Well, I've been terrified for democracy and the rise of autocracy for a long time. But if you look at the last nine, 10 months of
elections, the world has been doing pretty well. We had good elections in South Africa, Poland, Mexico was able to elect female Jewish leader, same
party, France, Britain, contentious, complicated elections. India, an extraordinary election.
And what you're seeing is that democracy is holding. And democracy, in fact, is holding, even when very powerful leaders, illiberal leaders, like
Modi in India, you know, obviously massive support, but not a, you know, true Democrat in the liberal sense, when they lose, or when they have to
cede power, the transition has actually been working, and that is what you want from democracy.
[13:25:00]
You want incumbents that lose fair elections. They had -- obviously, there are counterexamples as we are seeing in Venezuela. But in general, the
world has been able to handle democracies during a time where social media is making everybody angry, during a time where A.I. is making it quite
possible to make deep fakes, during a time where a lot of civic life and that civic ties that hold us together and make democracy work are
shattering, and I'm pretty optimistic and pleased by what we've seen so far.
Now, can this hold through the American election? We will see. But for now, I think the world's democracy have kind of done all right the last year.
GOLODRYGA: Emily, do you share that optimism? I mean, you have a candidate. We saw what happened on January 6th in 2021, and he has yet to
definitively say that he will accept the results of this election.
GLAZER: While I really want to share Nick's optimism, I think maybe from being a reporter, you know, on the ground writing about some of this stuff
day to day, I worry a little bit about what could happen in the United States.
I have talked to CEOs who said, you know, their companies are based in D.C. and they're keeping their offices closed on Election Day and on
Inauguration Day. I think there's a lot of PTSD from the Capitol riots and people are just, you know, concerned about whether, like you said, the
results will actually be accepted in the U.S. So, that's a bit more of a domestic point of view, and I apologize for being pessimistic. But you
know, we'll see what happens. But it might not be pretty.
THOMPSON: I think that protecting American democracy and doing everything that everybody can do to make sure that the election results are hold is
the most important challenge of right now. I'm very worried about it. But my point was only that so far democracy is holding. But yes, I completely
agree with Emily. This is very worse and absolutely crucial.
GOLODRYGA: Emily, Nick, great to see you.
THOMPSON: That was wonderful. Great to see you, Bianna. Thank you, Emily.
GLAZER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, for many parents, it's their dream to give their children a better start in life than they were given. Now, historically in America,
race has played a huge factor in this. Raj Chetty, director of Harvard's Opportunity Insights Initiative, is finding that the racial gap is closing.
Here he tells Hari Sreenivasan how this was achieved and what determines our children's futures today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Raj Chetty, thanks so much for joining us. Raj, you run Opportunity Insights at
Harvard, which takes a look at a lot of things. And really, the most fascinating stuff is the research you've done on social mobility over the
decades. And also, where's the data on how people get a leg up in America? And you had a recent report out looking at kids and what the kind of best
predictors of social mobility and outcomes were. Walk us a little bit through your findings.
RAJ CHETTY, DIRECTOR, HARVARD'S OPPORTUNITY INSIGHTS AND PROFESSOR OF ECONOMIC, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Yes, Hari. So, great to be with you again.
So, as you mentioned, our team has been studying issues of economic opportunity. Basically, who gets to achieve the American dream of rising
up. I think one of the cornerstone ideals of this country. No matter where you come from, no matter the color of your skin, no matter your background.
And we've been studying those issues using big data, data drawn from anonymized tax returns, covering all Americans, millions of kids and their
parents for over a decade now. And a decade ago, we put out a study called The Land of Opportunity, basically trying to figure out where the American
dream was alive and who had the best chances of rising up.
And in this most recent study that we put out a week ago, we've now updated that data to look at how economic opportunity, upward mobility is changing
by race and class in the United States. And the headline findings are that the landscape of opportunity. Is changing quite a bit in America. In
particular, racial gaps in economic opportunity between black and white Americans are narrowing somewhat.
So, it used to be the case, and it still remains the case to a large extent, that white kids growing up in low-income families have much better
chances of rising up and achieving the American dream than black kids. But that advantage, which was extremely large, if you look at kids born back,
say, in the late 1970s around when I was born, that advantage has shrunk by about a third already in the past 15 years. And then one-third change, you
know, that doesn't mean we have perfect equity by race by any means, but that's quite a substantial change over a 15-year period. So, that's one key
aspect of what has happened, shrinking race gaps.
On the other side, we find that class gaps are growing. And by that, I mean, parent income is a more and more important determinant of how well
you'll do in America. To divide between kids growing up in rich families and poor families, especially among white children is growing by about a
third over the past 15 years.
And so, the headline findings from these new data, covering 57 million kids are a story of shrinking race gaps and growing class gaps in economic
mobility.
[13:30:00]
SREENIVASAN: What do you think is the largest set of factors in shrinking the race gap? I mean, people are going to want to sort of ascribe their own
political interests onto, oh, it's because of this policy or that policy, but what's been working?
CHETTY: Yes. So, I think that's a complicated question. We investigated many different factors that might be causing this. Let me first say, you
know, just as a starting point, what is driving that shrinking of the race gap? Half of it is driven by black kids growing up in low-income families,
doing better than they were before. They're more likely to rise out of poverty, less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be incarcerated.
Positive progress for black kids growing up in low-income families, which I think we should celebrate.
On the other side, we have white kids growing up in low-income families, unfortunately doing a bit worse than they were in the past. Less likely to
be working, less likely to be in the middle class, and so on. And so, the shrinking of the race gap is coming from both of those forces, black kids
doing better and low-income white kids not doing as well.
Now, what is driving those trends? It turns out that a lot of the explanation originates in the communities in which these kids are growing
up. Black kids are increasingly growing up in thriving communities where you have more parents who are working, higher levels of stability, more
opportunities to rise up, more exposure to people who can connect you to an internship for a pathway to success.
White kids, particularly white kids with less educated parents, unfortunately, are growing up in communities that are not thriving as much,
and that's driving the decline in economic mobility for white children.
SREENIVASAN: So, even when you look either at race or class, is this a zero-sum? I mean, this doesn't seem like it's one community getting better
when the other gets worse or vice versa.
CHETTY: That's exactly right. And I think that's an extremely important point. We find that in the places where black kids are doing best, and we
can look at this data, but the audience can look it up in their own community. If you go to a website called The Opportunity Atlas, you can
look up data for your own county. And what you'll see is there are some parts of America, like parts of the southeast, a city like Charlotte, North
Carolina, for example, where black kids are doing much better than they were before.
But those same places where we see black kids doing better, we also see white kids doing relatively better. So, it's absolutely not a zero-sum
game, it's not that one group is benefiting at the expense of the other, both groups are doing better in some places and worse in other places. And
so, you know, I think what this shows us is that economic mobility is really something we can all benefit from and make progress in together.
SREENIVASAN: You mentioned Charlotte, North Carolina. That was a place 10 years ago in your report that did not fare too well. So, how were you able
to kind of look at that data over this time? Are they improving? How so? And who are they compared to?
CHETTY: Yes. So, Charlotte, I think, is a very interesting case. So, when we put out that data I mentioned earlier, the study in 2014, we ranked the
50 largest cities in America in terms of kids chances of rising up. And it turns out Charlotte ranked 50th out of the 50 largest cities. It was the
lowest in terms of your chances of rising up if you were a poor kid growing up there.
Now, that shocked and surprised many people in Charlotte because many people view Charlotte as a vibrant city, which it absolutely is. You know,
if you drive around Charlotte today, relative to 20 or 30 years ago, you'd see that there are many more tall towers and prospering businesses and
people who are doing well. But it turns out when you take a deeper look at the data, and you follow kids over time using tax records who are growing
up in Charlotte, particularly kids born in the late 1970s, early 1980s, if you were growing up in a low-income family, you are not benefiting from
that prosperity. You are not getting jobs at firms like Bank of America, you know, high paying financial company headquartered in Charlotte.
Now, when we put out that study, you know, folks in Charlotte, I think, responded in a really constructive way. They said, this is not something we
want the label of 50 out of 50. We believe in prosperity for everyone. What can we do to try to make a change? There were many initiatives launched, a
task force, more than $200 million spent by nonprofits to try to implement mentoring programs, other kinds of investments in the city, early childhood
education, to try to give kids better pathways to jobs at firms like Bank of America.
And what we see now, when we look at the new data, we can't describe it directly to those efforts, but, you know, more generally, it's actually a
very positive story where Charlotte now ranks among the most improved cities in terms of economic mobility in the past 15 years. At the top of
the list. It's not overall the best place in terms of rising up, but it's no longer 50 out of 50. It's something like 38 out of 50. It's on a very
positive trajectory.
Now, let me contrast that, Hari, with Atlanta, which ranked 49th out of 50 on our list in 2014. And now, unfortunately, ranks 50th out of 50. In
Atlanta, there's been no progress in terms of economic mobility. And so, what that shows you is there's no guarantee here that things are going to
get better. We have to take a deliberative approach to improving things.
[13:35:00]
But it also shows, I think, encouragingly that change is possible and we can make the American dream a reality for everyone.
SREENIVASAN: Look, someone might look at the kind of headlines from your study and say, well, this is just about money. I mean, is his class a
different way to say a wealthy or affluent community? Are there places where you can point to a city that might not be the richest or the
neighborhood that might not be the richest, but where kids are still getting these better outcomes because of the community of support that they
have and the access to internships or whose parents are working?
CHETTY: That's exactly right, Hari. So, you know, no doubt money matters. We see that kids who grow up in higher income families do better on many
dimensions, not just in how much money they make themselves, but their health, the education they get and numerous different life outcomes that we
might all care about.
But as you're stressing, and I think this is a key message from the data, what matters really above and beyond that is the strength of the community
in which you're growing up, even holding fixed your parents income. So, we give you a concrete example, take Dubuque, Iowa, or much of rural Iowa, you
wouldn't think of rural Iowa as sort of a powerhouse in terms of high paying jobs and so on.
It turns out, if you want to pick a place to rise up and achieve the American dream, that's the sort of place where your odds are the best. You
have the best chances of rising up in many places in the rural Midwest, not because you're going to get that high paying job or find success in that
community itself, but we see that those communities, which often have a lot of social capital, meaning connections between low and high income, people
who help you out, show you a path, have great educational systems and so on, they launch kids on careers that then, you know, lead them to high
paying positions in a place like Chicago or New York, find success in various domains and so on. So, that community unit is really crucial we
think for restoring the American dream.
SREENIVASAN: Since you have this large snapshot, and you can even zoom down into almost a ZIP code level here, I wonder what is it that's driving
less positive or more negative outcomes for white children? I mean, by your data, it would show that something is happening to those communities, that
there is less economic opportunity for the parents of your friends to have jobs, if I'm reading that right.
CHETTY: That's exactly right. And, you know, if we just think about the history of the U.S. and a lot of what we hear in the public discourse,
there have been many changes in terms of global competition, outsourcing, technological change, the decline in manufacturing, where lots of folks
have lost jobs, right? The local steel plant closes. The auto industry declines in certain places.
And many workers, and it's often been white workers who had those high paying jobs, they ended up losing employment. And we've seen an earlier
work that they haven't necessarily come back to work and haven't found jobs. Now, what we're seeing in these new data is that has an impact, not
just on that generation of workers who were displaced, but on the next generation of kids, in particular white kids who are growing up in these
communities where now, you know, you knew many people who worked at the local steel plant or auto plan and kind of have that pathway planned out
and kind of had a sense of how you might follow that track, that option is no longer available.
You might have thought people will naturally go in some different direction, but that's not happening. Unfortunately, we're seeing a decline
in those communities where there are health issues that emerge. People get more disconnected, not graduating from high school, a broader decline that
is leading to this decline in economic mobility, unfortunately, for many white Americans.
SREENIVASAN: We're all going to see for the next a couple of months, Harris and Walz and Trump and Vance go out on stump speeches after some
speeches and trying to reach these people who feel like that the economy has left them behind, right? And I wonder if you were to be able to advise
both of these campaigns, economic policy advisers, what would the suggestions be? How do we craft policies that target not just individuals,
but entire communities?
CHETTY: Yes, it's a great question. My view is these issues of declining economic opportunity are absolutely central to what we're hearing in the
public debate and the campaigns and so on. And the key question, of course, is what we can do to address these issues going forward, both for the
communities that are declining and to increase opportunity for black Americans. We're making some progress, but still have a long way to go to
catch up in terms of their chances of rising up.
And my sense is, while there's no silver bullet, I think there's been an excess focus and economic policy on things like financial capital, giving
people money or simply giving people education. Those things matter no doubt. But what we're seeing these new data and other related research is
that social capital matters as well in addition to financial capital and educational investment.
[13:40:00]
So, what do I mean by that? What I mean is that who you're connected to, who you're inspired by, what your networks look like, the social
infrastructure of society seems to be extremely important in addition to the bread and butter, how many dollars do you have, what schools do you
have access to and so on.
And often what we're seeing, Hari, is the programs that are most effective in a wide variety of domains. From affordable housing policy to job
training programs to educational policies, the interventions that are most effective pair, giving people resources with social support to use those
resources more effectively.
To give you a concrete example, take the housing voucher program on which we spend more than $20 billion a year in the U.S., giving families rental
assistance that is intended to help them move to higher opportunity neighborhoods. It turns out when you look at the data, families get this
money often worth, like, $1,500 a month, in many places, not a small sum, but they don't end up using that money to actually move to better
neighborhoods, better ZIP codes, where we see in our data, their kids are more likely to break the cycle of poverty.
And so, what we've done is -- in that context, an intervention in Seattle where we essentially provided social support to families, connected them
with a counselor who found housing for them in higher opportunity areas if they wanted to move there, negotiated with them with landlords on their
behalf, basically help them through the housing search process. And that relatively inexpensive intervention dramatically changed the fraction of
families who moved to high opportunity areas from 15 percent in the control group, this was run as a randomized experiment, to 60 percent in the
treatment group. Basically making the billions of dollars that we're already spending far more effective in terms of helping kids rise out of
poverty.
And we estimate that tweak to the program will help kids over their lifetimes earn about $200,000 more because they're now going to better
schools, growing up in more thriving communities and so on. So, that's just one small example. That theme, I think of using the resources we're already
spending in tandem with this social capital sort of intervention can be applied in many different settings. And I think can make our country much
more effective in helping people rise up.
SREENIVASAN: What do we do with all of the areas in America that lack the social capital today, whether they've been, you know, marginalized already,
whether they're already impoverished economically, where there isn't that access to someone's parents who might have a connection to a job that they
could work at?
CHETTY: Yes, absolutely. So, you know, I've been giving moving to opportunity as an example, bringing people to opportunity, that can be part
of the solution, but obviously, it's not completely scalable. What we really need to do is bring opportunity to people where they currently live
in places where it's lacking.
And so, there are many different strategies one can take. Let me give you another concrete example. I think there's a new set of job training
programs that can connect people to opportunities and have shown tremendous success in randomized trials that, again, combine traditional skills
training, you know, teaching people I.T. or some other skill that's in demand. But now, combining that with support from a network.
So, I'm thinking of programs like GEAR UP or Personal Us (ph), where what they do is bring in for something like a one-year internship, and they say,
look, you know, Bank of America is looking to hire a thousand people. This actually happened coming back to Charlotte. When (INAUDIBLE) our study.
Bank of America made a commitment to hire 1,000 kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who grew up in Charlotte itself.
And so, the way they did that, is they teamed up with this group GEAR UP and a local community college to say, we want to hire people who can fill
these specific jobs. Let's provide them the training they need to be able to get those jobs, but also tell them that there's an internship waiting
for them, provide them the wraparound social support needed to be able to succeed in these careers and so on.
And it turns out if you do a randomized trial, you know, flip of a coin, some people get access to this program, some people don't. Those who get
access to it, we see a 40 percent earnings gain sustained over many, many years. And they are now, because of that social contact, on a trajectory
where, you know, they're providing for themselves, providing for their families. That's again one concrete example of things we can do in
communities where opportunity is currently lacking.
SREENIVASAN: All right. Raj Chetty, professor of Economics at Harvard and Director of Opportunity Insights, thanks so much for joining us.
CHETTY: Thank you, Hari. My pleasure.
[13:45:00]
