Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts
When President Donald Trump mused that “possibly the kids could have two dolls as a substitute of 30 dolls, you understand?” it wasn’t a deeply developed critique of late capitalism, or a sly nod to Weberian asceticism. Nonetheless, for these of us who’d been hoarding gadgets in a Temu buying cart, it did increase some vital philosophical questions: Is a automobile vacuum needed? What number of baseball hats are you able to stack? What number of dolls is just too many? As soon as once more, Trump reached into our responsible, grasping, trendy hearts and dug out the nostalgia for an easier time once we have been content material with much less. But additionally, as soon as once more, he left out the soiled particulars.
On this episode of Radio Atlantic, we speak with a doll producer and a coverage analyst about tariffs and Individuals’ relationship with selection. Elenor Mak, the founding father of Jilly Bing, talks about her dream of giving Asian American youngsters the selection of getting a doll that appears like them, and the way the brand new tariffs would possibly kill it. Martha Gimbel of the Price range Lab at Yale discusses who would truly be damage by the tariffs, and the alternatives they take away—and what you could possibly truly do when you needed to shift American client conduct.
The next is a transcript of the episode:
Hanna Rosin: Final week, at a Cupboard assembly, whereas answering a query about tariffs, President Donald Trump talked about dolls.
President Donald Trump: Perhaps the kids could have two dolls as a substitute of 30 dolls, you understand? And possibly the 2 dolls will value a few bucks greater than they might usually.
[Music]
Rosin: Now, this wasn’t any deep social commentary, simply an offhand assertion. However it did get me enthusiastic about how youngsters right now—together with my very own—do have one million dolls versus, say, once I was a child.
Rosin: Do you keep in mind your first doll?
Elenor Mak: Oh, in fact. My first doll was Ada. I took Ada with me all over the place: to the park, to dim sum. I attempted to carry her to highschool. However I additionally keep in mind she was lovely in a means that I felt I by no means may very well be.
Rosin: That is Elenor Mak.
Mak: She had these lovely blond curls. She had huge blue eyes. She had that porcelain pores and skin. And even then—I believe I used to be someplace [around] 5 or 6 years previous—I keep in mind pondering, I want I seemed like Ada.
Rosin: When Elenor was a child, like once I was a child, what she didn’t have was that a lot selection. However even after Elenor grew up and had her personal youngsters, the choices have been nonetheless fairly meh. There have been mainly blond dolls, some brunettes, and a few that Elenor describes as “vaguely Asian.”
Mak: You’re not likely positive what they’re imagined to be. And the one purpose I knew a few of these dolls have been supposed to be Asian was as a result of they’d a reputation like Ling, or they have been holding panda bears or had a extremely unhealthy haircut and—
Rosin: (Laughs.)
Mak: —you understand, like that bowl lower my mother did give me. However as an Asian American mom, I don’t relate to any of that.
Rosin: So when Elenor had her daughter, she didn’t need her to have the bowl-cut mannequin. She needed a doll that her youngster may truly relate to. So Elenor did the factor that most individuals do not do—
Rosin: She began an organization to make her personal dolls. It’s known as Jilly Bing, partly named after her daughter, Jillian.
Mak: Jillian is now 5, Jilly Jillian.
Rosin: She needed to create them within the U.S., however she couldn’t discover a doll producer right here who may do it.
Mak: Each lead led to the identical factor, which is: They’ve closed. They not create dolls.
Rosin: So Elenor seemed outdoors the U.S. and located a manufacturing unit in China that she developed a detailed relationship with.
Mak: Doll manufacturing is a closely handbook course of. The rooting of each doll’s hair is completed manually.
Rosin: Wow.
Mak: They’d weigh the hair to verify there’s consistency. And somebody would free-form, like, sew it, placing it by means of the stitching machine till the doll’s head was totally rooted. There may be great precision required. Somebody is manually putting these tiny little dolls’ head[s], proper?
So my doll is 14 inches. So the top, I’m guessing it’s two to 3 inches. So somebody is manually placing this onto the meeting line, which then they stamp the eyes and the blush. And even when it’s simply, like, one-one-hundredth off, that doll abruptly, like—I’ve some Jilly dolls that appear to be Get together Jilly as a result of her eyeliner is like—
Rosin: (Laughs.)
Mak: I saved these. I saved these—a particular version. However the eyeliner’s just a bit bit off, and abruptly it’s like, Okay. This isn’t the lovely, you understand, healthful—
Rosin: Jilly was out late final evening.
Mak: I name her the Get together Jilly.
[Music]
Rosin: Issues have been going okay for Elenor. She acquired some good press in locations like CBS—
Anchor: Elenor Mak, good morning.
Rosin: —and the At the moment present.
Reporter: What number of dolls on this home proper now?
Mak: 300 or 400. We began out with near 2,000.
Rosin: However then got here the tariffs.
Anchor: Simply in the previous couple of moments, the BBC has confirmed that U.S. tariffs towards China add as much as 145 %—
Mak: My husband texted me. I keep in mind him saying, Have you ever seen the tariffs? And I used to be like, What are you speaking about? My head spun.
Anchor: —that’s together with the present 20 % tariffs that have been already imposed on the nation initially of the 12 months.
Mak: Our doll retails for $68, so that’s thought of a premium doll already. To assume that I’d cost $150-plus for this doll—it was like placing a nail to the coffin of our enterprise.
[Music]
Rosin: That is Radio Atlantic. I’m Hanna Rosin.
Tariffs are not an abstraction. They’re displaying up in buying carts—grocery store and digital. And they’re forcing plenty of Individuals to reckon with a way of life we’ve taken with no consideration—merchandise get made cheaply someplace else, giving us an abundance of selection over right here.
We’ll speak extra later about how tariffs have the potential to alter American tradition, however first: the Jilly Bing emergency—what tariffs appear to be from the aspect of the American producer who is set to provide us extra selection.
Earlier than essentially the most restrictive tariffs on China went into place final month, Elenor Mak was already in emergency mode. A manufacturing unit she’d developed a superb relationship with introduced they’d plans to shut—completely unrelated to the approaching commerce battle. So like each good entrepreneur, Elenor hustled.
Mak: And that entire course of practically broke us—simply actually form of dashing stock in and beginning work with a brand new manufacturing unit—and I believed that was gonna be the worst of it.
Rosin: Mm-hmm.
Mak: So when the tariff announcement got here, it was virtually like, Wow. It simply felt debilitating.
Rosin: And while you heard concerning the tariffs, did you instantly go into motion? Like, name the employees, sit again of the envelope, determine all of it out? Did you name individuals? How did you progress by means of that course of?
Mak: Yeah. I believe there was part of—you understand, talking to plenty of founders who’re additionally in consumer-products sourcing from China, Vietnam—I believe plenty of us simply mentioned, This may’t be. This received’t move. This can be a political transfer. This received’t truly undergo. So I believe it was disbelief. However there was additionally a necessity to start out actioning, proper? Calling our manufacturing unit, calling the freight forwarders, attempting to know what the affect was.
And I’d say it was simply chaos. Nobody actually knew, proper? There was hypothesis: That is what it may appear to be, or, In the event you get it in by this date. However [at] the top of the day, there was this danger that by the point our imports got here in, we’d be hit with this 145 % value enhance.
Rosin: So the choice—I perceive. So the choice is even about placing in orders since you don’t know what’s going to occur on the again finish. It’s concerning the uncertainty since you simply can’t predict your entire course of. You may’t predict it from starting to finish, so you could possibly be caught with this stock that you simply then must pay a lot extra for.
Mak: Completely. So for me, you understand, now that you simply’re—I’m strolling down reminiscence lane: We have been about to signal a purchase order order, proper? So April—after which that means we’d get the products in by type of August, September, proper earlier than the vacations, to have it arrive into our warehouse. However as soon as we signal that buy order, that turns into binding. After which, you understand, as soon as it arrives within the port, regardless of the costs are, I’m answerable for that. So for me, the choice was to not concern that buy order.
Rosin: I see. Okay. So it’s April; you’ve acquired a call to make. So I see why you had to do that actually shortly. Numbers are going by means of your head, like, How rather more is that this gonna value? Every little thing that you simply talked about. However on the opposite aspect of it’s your firm, this factor that you simply’ve constructed that’s very private. So how did you weigh all that?
Mak: I believe it was pure exhaustion. It was a sense of, Oh my gosh, what number of extra of those boulders coming downhill can this small enterprise [take]? Proper? It’s largely me who was full-time on the enterprise, and I believe simply from a psychological capability, I used to be burned-out.
Rosin: Mm-hmm.
Mak: And to consider, you understand, signing that PO, ready for my cargo to return in, and holding my breath till it arrived on the port to determine what the value may appear to be, it was simply, I believe, greater than I may bear. And I used to be devastated, proper? As a result of I believe for us, you understand, it was all the time about giving extra households decisions. I believe one factor I needed to share is: This doll is supposed to be Asian American. And our doll has introduced pleasure to plenty of youngsters and adults, and it was devastating to assume this might finish if I’m pressured out of enterprise.
Rosin: Mm-hmm.
Mak: However for me, within the quick time period, we’ve stock, we’ve the silver lining, and I can trip this out for a while. However that stock additionally is not going to final ceaselessly.
Rosin: You realize what? I don’t know that I’ve a superb sense of—possibly that is simply how entrepreneurs are. I don’t know that I’ve a superb sense of whether or not you—do you assume you’ll climate this? I can’t inform. Like, how lifelike a hope is that?
Mak: I can solely climate this if the insurance policies change within the subsequent 12 months. And in order an entrepreneur, I believe, I’m hopeful. I’m optimistic. However I’m additionally sensible once I have a look at my numbers, once I see my stock, you understand, the tendencies. So yeah, possibly that’s why you’re not—it’s like part of me is optimistic issues will kind itself out earlier than my type of self-imposed deadline of once we would wish to position a PO comes out.
Rosin: So earlier than the final doll is out of your home or wherever you retain the dolls, issues must shift politically.
Mak: Sure, as a result of with the present tariffs, there’s simply—I can’t survive.
[Music]
Rosin: That was Elenor Mak, founding father of the doll firm Jilly Bing.
After the break, the opposite aspect of the equation: Us, the customers—our espresso, our toasters, our automobiles, our assumption that every one issues can be found to us immediately. That’s in a second.
[Break]
Gimbel: My identify is Martha Gimbel. I’m the chief director of the Price range Lab at Yale, which is a nonpartisan assume tank that analyzes the impacts of federal financial insurance policies.
Rosin: So Martha, I do know the Price range Lab has been busy tallying up how Trump’s tariffs are going to alter the costs of all types of products for Individuals. I actually am enthusiastic about the long run, like how our client tradition round low-cost merchandise would possibly change. However first I wish to speak about some specifics.
We simply talked to an unbiased doll producer, so wish to use that trade for instance. Say it’s my child’s birthday developing, and I wish to purchase them a doll. What’s the panorama I’m ?
Gimbel: It’s not perfect, I believe is the technical time period, you understand? We simply don’t produce that many toys in the USA anymore. And, you understand, I believe individuals generally get somewhat bit itchy about that, and so they assume, Oh, we ought to be making issues within the good previous USA. However that makes issues rather more costly, and it additionally implies that when you’re making toys, you may’t do different kinds of jobs, which can be extra extremely compensated.
Rosin: Proper. And simply to dig in, let’s say you must purchase a toy in three months— like, are we speaking twice as a lot? Like, do you’ve any projections? Since I do know that is what you guys do. Like, how rather more costly would I count on it to be?
Gimbel: So it relies upon somewhat bit on the place particularly the toy is made, how a lot the producer of the toy was capable of get stock into the nation forward of time, how a lot they really feel they’ll attempt to move the value onto their customers, etcetera. Simply for instance, we predict that within the quick run, rubber and plastic merchandise general—so clearly, plenty of dolls are made out of plastic—will enhance their costs by about 22 %.
However clearly, given the tariffs on China, if one thing’s fully made in China, it would doubtless enhance by a lot, rather more.
Rosin: Yeah, so for weeks now, we’ve been warned that we must always count on costs of sure items principally made in different international locations to go up, like rice, toasters, espresso, I imply, plastic items, such as you simply mentioned. Are you able to venture general how a lot a family funds of a median American household is more likely to go up?
Gimbel: Yeah, so we discover that we predict that, you understand, on common, households can pay about $5,000 extra a 12 months.
Rosin: Wait—$5,000? That’s truly loads.
Gimbel: It’s some huge cash. You realize, most individuals can’t simply take in that of their family budgets, proper? In the event you say to individuals, unexpectedly, To eat what you consumed final 12 months, that’s gonna value you $5,000 extra, that makes individuals somewhat bit itchy, understandably.
One factor I ought to say is that as a share of revenue, it’s a larger % enhance for households on the backside. And that’s as a result of poor households are inclined to spend extra of their revenue on items, proper? In case you are a lower-income family, you might be spending rather more as a share of your revenue on footwear on your youngsters, meals, issues like that. Whereas higher-income households could also be shopping for holidays, which aren’t tariffed.
Rosin: Proper. Are there some surprises that Individuals may need in retailer? Like, issues that you simply discovered are more likely to go up far more than we count on? Issues that I possibly don’t even affiliate with China or know are made in China?
Gimbel: To some extent, plenty of that is quote-unquote “apparent,” proper? We expect the large hit to be on clothes, for instance. I believe lots of people understand that their garments are usually not made in the USA. I believe the factor that’s going to be more durable for individuals is: Even issues which might be made in the USA might purchase inputs from overseas, proper? So simply since you’ve made the hassle to seek out one thing that’s produced in the USA doesn’t imply that they’re not getting cotton, silk, wooden—no matter it’s—from outdoors the USA.
Rosin: So while you have a look at the panorama, are you pondering only a few issues are exempt from this? Like, most issues are gonna be costlier?
Gimbel: I imply, providers, technically—
Rosin: Sure?
Gimbel: —ought to be exempt from tariffs. Though, we did simply see the president announce that they’re going to be tariffing motion pictures. I’m not fully positive how that might work. However, you understand, normally, I believe there are only a few elements of the goods-producing financial system that we expect to not be hit.
And I believe one factor that’s vital to bear in mind, proper, is: Say that you’re, by some miracle, a home producer who is completely insulated from this, proper? You purchase your material from a pleasant material producer down the highway who will get the whole lot in the USA, etcetera. Why would you not increase your costs, proper? So your entire rivals have to lift their costs by, let’s say, 10 % within the face of tariffs. You may increase your costs by 8 %, nonetheless get plenty of market share, and get the advantage of these larger costs. And so we do additionally count on even home producers to lift the costs.
Rosin: Oh, okay. That I hadn’t considered. So the whole lot—all costs get raised. I imply, that simply makes financial sense. Like, you’re simply rising your income.
Gimbel: Yeah, why not? I imply, within the face of tariffs, it truly is a kind of no-place-to-run, no-place-to-hide form of factor[s] for the buyer.
Rosin: I wish to speak concerning the issues President Trump says he’s attempting to resolve with tariffs, as a result of he talks about how short-term ache is price it for the long-term achieve, and that we’ll see factories reopening in America. What do you make of this dialog we’ve been having for many years now about manufacturing shifting abroad?
Gimbel: You realize, I believe that there’s a lot of nostalgia for manufacturing.
Rosin: Mm-hmm.
Gimbel: I believe one of many issues that I discover actually weird about this whole dialog is that the USA is that this extremely wealthy nation. And sure, to be clear: There have been, you understand, jobs misplaced in response to the “China Shock,” in response to automation. Besides, when you can take into consideration which nation on the planet has one of many strongest economies, most vibrant economies, the place you may succeed, it’s the USA. Different international locations wish to be us. They’re attempting to make their economies extra like our financial system. Why are we attempting to be like different international locations?
Rosin: I see. So you might be seeing it as a constructive evolution away from manufacturing, so it’s onerous to know what the nostalgia for manufacturing is.
Gimbel: Yeah. I imply, in 1902, all of us used to work in farms, proper? And you understand, sure, there are individuals nonetheless in the USA who work in farms right now. Loads of their work appears to be like very completely different than it did in 1902. And people jobs have been actually, actually onerous, and we’ve advanced to a model of the USA the place we get to purchase items produced cheaply by different individuals who do actually, you understand, bodily painful work, and we get to offer providers and be paid—within the realm of the world—a reasonably excessive wage for that. That looks like a extremely whole lot to me.
Rosin: Attention-grabbing. Do you assume that that’s a perspective from an professional trying on excessive and doesn’t consider individuals’s emotions about service work or individuals’s connection to factories or, you understand, all these sorts of issues that Trump talks about? The issues that persons are lacking? As a result of it sounds really easy while you say it.
Gimbel: I imply, I wish to be very clear: Economists are usually not all the time nice about individuals’s feelings. And so I don’t wish to deny that. It’s also the case, proper, that there are individuals who used to work in manufacturing who’ve misplaced these jobs [and] have discovered it comparatively onerous to regulate to the brand new financial system. And I don’t wish to dismiss the ache that these individuals have skilled, and it’s been very acute ache for these particular individuals. For our general financial system, although, the shift to providers has been actually, actually constructive.
And so I believe there’s a few issues that form of all get mixed in right here. Some is the precise, acute ache that the individuals who weren’t winners from the shift to a providers financial system have felt. And the opposite is a need for what’s seen as, like, a extra old school model of America, and persons are utilizing manufacturing as some form of proxy for that.
I don’t wish to come throughout as if I’m like, There are not any issues right here. You realize, the hollowing out of the center class has been an actual concern. However I believe it’s actually vital to not settle for the premise that the issue is that manufacturing moved to China.
Rosin: Proper. I see. The issue is far more sophisticated than that. And from somebody such as you who appears to be like on the huge image of the financial system, it appears like an evolution, and it’s somewhat complicated why we’d wish to undo it.
Gimbel: Yeah, I imply, there are issues that you are able to do to repair the financial system, make it extra equal, make individuals really feel like they’ve extra alternatives, etcetera. Placing large tariffs on China in an try to carry again jobs which might be legitimately onerous and comparatively low-paid jobs to the USA is just not going to finish the best way I believe lots of people need it to.
Rosin: Okay. Right here’s one other huge query: Individuals are, the truth is, used to low-cost costs and infinite choices. Is that honest to say?
Gimbel: Yeah. I imply, we love low-cost costs, and we love having the ability to simply pop over to the shop and choose no matter doll out we wish for our children.
Rosin: Oh, it’s humorous it’s best to point out dolls. So Trump did make the assertion about dolls: Youngsters may have two as a substitute of 30. And I’m not pretending that Trump was making some form of well-developed coverage assertion, however it’s a analysis that folks on all sides of the political spectrum have additionally made through the years.
So what do you consider that sentiment within the context of this tariff-heavy second?
Gimbel: I imply, look—we are able to have a cultural dialog about: Do we’ve an excessive amount of stuff? That’s completely different than the financial dialog of, like, Ought to the federal government be placing strictures in place such that it makes it onerous for individuals to purchase the stuff that they need?
I believe one of many issues that’s been type of complicated to individuals is that the Trump administration has began to say a few of these issues that sound somewhat bit, you understand, for lack of higher phrasing, central plannery, which isn’t one thing individuals have historically related to authorities in the USA, a lot much less the Republican Get together. And so it’ll be fascinating to see how the American public responds to that.
You realize, I believe on the “Will we all have an excessive amount of stuff?” factor, I believe, once more, it’s simple to be nostalgic for, you understand, quote-unquote “an easier time.” And my model of the story is that, you understand, I had an Easter-egg hunt for my daughter and, you understand, different young children just a few weeks in the past, and my mom and I have been on the market within the morning scattering plastic eggs. If any young children are listening to this, the Easter Egg Bunny was scattering the eggs.
Rosin: (Laughs.)
Gimbel: And my mom mentioned, you understand, Once I was a toddler, we didn’t have this. My mom dyed literal eggs and hid them within the yard, after which we hunted for eggs, and we hoped we discovered all of them, as a result of in any other case it smelled horrible.
Rosin: Yeah.
Gimbel: And, you understand, I believe there’s simply plenty of issues like that that we simply don’t take into consideration, like: Do the kids want plastic eggs? No, they’ll be positive. They’ll survive. Is it form of good? Yeah, it’s.
Rosin: That’s a wonderful instance. I completely see what you’re saying by “central plannery.” I acquired that idea instantly. It’s, like, shifting tradition from the pulpit, because it have been.
However why not return to dyeing eggs? Like, don’t that you must be pressured into synthetic shortage? Like, is there a universe wherein larger tariffs do have a possible to shift client habits and possibly assist out this habit to low-cost? As a result of everyone knows that the habit to low-cost encourages unhealthy labor practices and air pollution everywhere in the world. So it’s a huge drawback that’s onerous to shift.
Gimbel: You realize, if there’s one thing that you simply assume is unhealthy, you may tax it, proper? So, you understand, that is one factor that economists are in favor of however virtually nobody else likes, is a carbon tax the place you set taxes on the quantity of carbon that it takes to provide one thing, as a result of there are externalities to that.
The factor about tariffs, proper, is that they’re simply, like, a blunt, inefficient instrument. So possibly there are issues which might be—simply to stay with the carbon instance—you understand, very high-carbon intensive which might be being produced that we’re taking place to hit with tariffs. However we’re additionally hitting bananas. Why are we tariffing bananas? We will’t develop bananas in the USA, definitely not at scale. Why are we tariffing espresso? None of this makes any sense.
Rosin: I see. So it’s simply too crude an instrument.
Gimbel: Yeah, we’re simply—we’re hitting the whole lot, slightly than attempting to consider: What’s the conduct that we are literally attempting to do right here? Are there issues we try to disincentivize? Is there income we’re attempting to lift? Is that this essentially the most environment friendly technique to increase income? And we’re simply saying: All people’s tariffed. We don’t prefer it once we purchase issues from different individuals. And that’s the place we’re.
Rosin: Proper. Proper. So there isn’t any intentionality. In the event you needed to shift client tradition, enhance the atmosphere, you’ll be doing it in a wholly completely different and extra focused means.
Gimbel: Sure. I imply, I’ll say: I’m somewhat itchy on, you understand, utilizing taxes or, you understand, financial incentives to shift tradition. I believe that’s a broader dialog.
However there are locations the place, you understand, there’s conduct that has spillover results—like carbon—to society and the financial system. And we do take into consideration taxing these sorts of issues, however we’re taxing that particularly, slightly than only a broad, the whole lot’s-gonna-hurt-now method.
Rosin: Proper. Like, the very apparent instance is: larger gasoline costs, much less driving, like what they do in Europe. Are you able to see any situation the place this all unfolds in the best way Trump imagines, which is short-term ache for long-term achieve?
Gimbel: No.
Rosin: No situation wherein, like, the American manufacturing—extra issues are manufactured within the U.S.? You realize, individuals determine the place the—methods to make an American doll manufacturing unit? Like, none of that appears lifelike to you?
Gimbel: No, it doesn’t. And you understand, to start with, you must take into consideration trade-offs right here. So positive, when you do the tariffs, it’s doubtless that some manufacturing jobs come again to the USA. That’s completely the case. You’re virtually definitely going to lose a ton of development jobs—simply for instance, simply in that one sector—as a result of development depends on plenty of inputs from overseas, and if these develop into a lot, rather more costly, they’re not gonna construct as a lot, and persons are going to lose jobs.
And so you’ve this concentrate on this one particular, comparatively small a part of the financial system, and also you’re gonna ding the remainder of the financial system for that one small sector. And even inside that sector, proper, there are gonna be some producers—as we have been discussing earlier than—who’re going to undergo as a result of they depend on inputs from overseas. And so what you’re going to do is have a really, very costly means of making comparatively few jobs in small industries, however everybody else loses.
Rosin: Who do you assume is gonna be damage essentially the most within the subsequent 12 months or two?
Gimbel: You realize, as we have been discussing earlier, you understand, as a share of revenue, that is gonna hit lower-income individuals more durable. However the true reply is: everybody. That is going to harm everybody. Everybody’s going to be paying more cash on the grocery retailer. They’re going to be paying more cash for youngsters’s garments. Jobs are going to be misplaced. There might be impacts for the inventory market. There are not any wins right here. This isn’t good. And I believe as a result of it appears so insane, individuals wish to say or discover some one thing that might be higher due to this. And that’s simply very, very, not possible.
Rosin: Effectively, Martha, I actually don’t relish ending an interview on no silver lining and no wins for anybody, however I believe that’s simply the fact. So thanks for delivering us this drugs. I admire it.
Gimbel: Anytime.
Rosin: This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Kevin Townsend and Jinae West. It was edited by Claudine Ebeid. We had engineering help from Rob Smierciak and fact-checking by Sara Krolewski. Claudine Ebeid is the chief producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
Listeners, when you like what you hear on Radio Atlantic, keep in mind you may help our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists while you subscribe to The Atlantic at theatlantic.com/podsub. That’s theatlantic.com/podsub.
I’m Hanna Rosin. Thanks for listening.
