The Future of Cities
2020-06-11 · Guest: Brent Orrell (Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute) · 52:05
Impact of COVID-19 on urban life and cities
Bob Zadek and Brent Orrell discuss the profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urban life and the concept of the city. They explore how remote work is decoupling residence from employment, potentially leading to a more decentralized and freer American society while posing significant challenges to the tax bases and political structures of major metropolitan areas.
Topics: Urbanism, Remote Work, COVID-19, Density, Spontaneous Order, Public Choice, Public Service Unions, Economic Productivity
Speakers: Bob Zadek, Brent Orrell
Introduction [00:18]
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, welcome to The Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio. Thank you so much for listening this Sunday morning. We are this morning and always the show of ideas, never once, not ever, the show of attitude. Thank you so much for listening.
Interesting how the mind works. The pandemic virus caused me and the rest of the country to—after observing how the virus profoundly affected our large, great cities, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and the like—the cities took the brunt of the adverse economic and social and health effects of the virus. And that immediately led to lots of workers working from home, and then lots of feedback as the media and pundits started to look under the hood of what working from home meant to the workers, to the employers, and to the cities where the workers were no longer going in order to earn a living. And that immediately led to a more serious inquiry into the concept of cities.
What is a city? What does the virus tell us about cities? Has the virus forced upon us a profound change in something we have taken for granted for oh so long in terms of our relationship to where we live and where we work? Has the virus forced us to make decisions that ultimately we will be thankful for and would not have made absent the virus? Will the results of the virus, putting aside the health effects, will the long-term effects of the virus on city life be positive, negative, or will they just disappear and we’ll go back to the somewhat good old days of working and living in the same place?
Thus, this morning’s inquiry is into cities. What they are, do we need them, is this the end of city life? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, is this the end of city life as we know it or not? I’m delighted to welcome to the show this morning Brent Orrell. Brent is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has worked in the Bush administration. He has been involved in the legislative and executive branch of our government for some time. He has studied work in America for most of his life. He is the host of a wonderful podcast that I recommend to you called Hardly Working. Brent has studied this issue, has written thoughtfully on the future of cities, and who better to help us sort through this issue than Brent Orrell. Brent, welcome to the show this morning.
Brent Orrell: Hi Bob, it’s great to be with you. Thanks so much for having me on.
Defining the City [01:52]
Bob Zadek: So Brent, we are talking about cities. Now, let’s start with some basics. A city—what is a city? Is it simply a geographic boundary with a form of government and a police force? Is it any place where a whole lot of people work? Does that make it a city? What are the characteristics of what a city is? In other words, what makes a city a city?
Brent Orrell: Well, thanks for that question. I think that that’s a really important starting point for this conversation when we think about the impact of the coronavirus on the future of cities, to ask what are we talking about when we talk about a city. I kind of think of it in four related domains.
First, cities are social. Human beings are really built to develop and live within communities. This nature is quite literally encoded in our DNA. Cities are just the human instinct for community expressed on a massive scale.
The second characteristic is that in my mind, at least, cities are like circuses. Each city has thousands, tens of thousands, even millions of performances that are being enacted simultaneously. The whole project works not because it’s planned, but because it’s the product of an uncountable number of individual actions that kind of spontaneously emerge into order. The urban systems that we see—government, police, transit, education, health—they don’t create cities. They are created in response to and as part of this spontaneous order.
The third thing is that cities are self-compounding. And what I mean by that is that they build upon themselves. They create and they depend upon density, and they grow more complex and productive over time. Right now, the largest 300 cities in the world account for about 50% of global GDP. Americans who live in large urban areas are 50% more productive than those who live in smaller metro areas. This is what happens when you pull together a bunch of smart, ambitious hustlers and get them to both cooperate with one another and compete with one another. They innovate, they build, and they produce.
And then finally, cities are both delicate and resilient. Their scale, their complexity, their dynamism means that cities are easily disrupted by catastrophe, but it’s very rare to find an example of a city that has failed and disappeared. Disasters tend to drive adaptation to new circumstances rather than the abandonment of the settlement itself. Cities tend to emerge stronger after disasters than they were before.
So those are kind of the four big buckets of ideas that I think about when I think about cities. And I think that that gives us a sense for both why they are so important to us and how they shape us, how we shape them, and how dependent we are on them. And ultimately, I think that that is a reason for hope for cities—that they’ll stay with us, they’ll evolve, but they aren’t going to disappear.
Spontaneous Order vs. Planned Cities [02:46]
Bob Zadek: So cities are good. Okay, so we’ll start with that as a premise, because everything you described is a positive good. The circus aspects, the social aspects—and circus is not a pejorative, it’s a positive—the social aspects, the fact that they organically grow because they are a positive experience, and they produce a very productive workforce. So we start with that premise.
Brent Orrell: And just to clarify for a second, Bob, cities are us, right? They exist because we exist. They are an outgrowth of our nature. We have to be together, and that’s why urban areas exist.
Bob Zadek: Then if we start with that premise, why isn’t it a governmental policy—and let’s say a national governmental policy—to build or encourage or create more cities? From what you say, the more cities you have, the better the collective economic, social, entertainment, intellectual life is. So therefore, if cities are good, can there be a governmental policy that just makes more cities? After all, or are cities created somehow like a seed is dropped into the earth and some take root and others do not? To what extent, if they are good, can we create more of them? How does a city get created, a new city?
Brent Orrell: Yeah, I think that the idea that stands behind your question is this idea that somebody is in charge of cities, of the creation of cities and of their development and their management. Cities take root on their own. I think the plant analogy that you just used, the idea of a seed taking root for their own reasons, not because somebody says, “Well, we’re going to have a city here because I say so.”
It’s because, for instance, in the case of New York, it was the natural attributes of that area of the North American coastline that made it the logical place, the most advantageous place for settlement to begin. And the natural assets and resources in that area then fed its development. And as I said, cities are self-compounding, so they tend to grow over time and become more complex and more productive as they go along.
So government can recognize cities, and does recognize cities—say, the federal government—but planned cities don’t actually seem to work out all that well. When you think of planned urban communities, you don’t usually arrive at a positive image. What you arrive at is something like Cabrini-Green or some massive complex. I mean, the Soviet social planners planted—tried to plant—cities all over the Soviet Union and Russia, and they’re mostly not very attractive and mostly people don’t want to live there. They want to be in those organically sprouted cities where the texture and the vibrancy and the life that cities create is natural and, again, grows out of this basic instinct that human beings have to be together.
Density and the Urban Web [03:52]
Bob Zadek: So cities have to be organic. They cannot, as you just pointed out, they cannot be planned. Now, our large—when we do the mind game ourselves and think of a city, we think generally of high-rise buildings, lots of workers, we think of commuting to work, and we think—the word always pops up very early—of density. So does a city require density? It seems like in the characteristics you describe, they almost can’t exist without density. What is the relationship of density to a vibrant city? Are the two—do they go hand in hand and you cannot have one without the other?
Brent Orrell: Yeah, I think they are really synonymous. And as I said in my kind of opening framing remarks, cities both create density and then depend on that density. You can’t create a city out of nothing. You—again, it relies on kind of its natural—the natural attributes of whatever the geographic location is. That’s why cities form around where rivers come together and where, you know, a mountain pass is, and where ports and coastlines are amenable to trade. It’s because they have these natural assets that tend to draw people to them.
That magnetic quality that we see in cities is what creates the density. And that density is then—in a sense, kind of depends on itself, right? So that if there’s a sudden drop, say, in density in a population, the city can’t continue to function very well. It’s an intricate web of interdependent people, organizations, businesses that are, whether they know it or not—and oftentimes they don’t know it—they’re cooperating with one another to create a functioning urban environment. So you start pulling out the pieces or closing down the pieces of a city, and pretty soon the city itself is unable to function.
Remote Work as a Catalyst [04:52]
Bob Zadek: Now, now we have—cities are clearly places where lots and lots and lots of people work. Office workers. And office, I don’t mean doing bureaucratic tasks—think Silicon Valley with all the creativity, think of not just Silicon Valley the location, but the tech industry. Highly creative, highly innovative, very collaborative, that almost requires human density, and it seems to require physical proximity.
So we start with the fact that many workers simply work in offices because that’s where it’s always been. Some work collaboratively, that is in person, in close proximity, because that’s part of the process itself. Now, focusing on the former: the virus has forced us to experience—it was force-fed experience—the whole concept of working from home, which means severing the relationship between where you live and where you work to some degree.
Does that open somewhat of a Pandora’s box—although that suggests a negative, and I don’t mean that working from home is a negative, it is simply new and different for many of us—but looking into the future, and one of the great joys of podcasting, as you know Brent, is you get to voice an opinion. You’re not stating a fact. You can speculate and voice an opinion, and so long as you share with us the basis of your opinion, your opinion has great weight and great validity.
So help us understand how you see the effect of working from home, people discovering, “Hey, this is pretty pleasant,” and “Hey, this can be done,” and “I am as or more productive,” it is cheaper for the employer. So working from home, where it works, seems to be win-win for the employer and the employee. Tell us what you see as the possibility, if not the probability, that that will profoundly affect cities and your observation of what cities will be like in the future.
Brent Orrell: So I think it’s really important to note at the outset of this part of our conversation that COVID did not create telecommuting. Telecommuting was a rising trend in American business life, economic life, for the last 10, 15 years. And what COVID has done is it has provided an accelerant to drive that change much faster and to open up possibilities for people—many more people than we would have thought of before.
And I think that that goes to a couple of issues that employers have long had with telecommuting. There’s been, I think, a suspicion of it. I remember reading one time on Twitter or Facebook or someplace like that that if you’re working at home, you’re not working. And I think that really expressed the concern of employers that one of the reasons that they want people in the office is so that they can keep an eye on them and they can make sure that people are being productive.
And I think what we’re finding in the midst of this crisis is that people can be as or more productive working from home. And that is going to be a big factor in employers’ minds moving forward, I think, especially for those kinds of tasks that don’t require daily face-to-face interaction with either their co-workers or clients.
Corporate Culture and Real Estate Economics [06:18]
Brent Orrell: Now, there’s some complexity underneath that. It’s very difficult to build a corporate culture if people aren’t actually working in the same place. And acclimating new employees—there’s a difference between acclimating new employees and working with the ones that you already have. The ones you already have know what the business is about, they know the values and priorities of the business, and they operate accordingly. New people, and especially younger workers coming into the system, they haven’t had the benefit of that experience, of that close interpersonal contact that we get out of working in the same location.
So I think that’s one factor. I think the second factor, though—and this is what I think is really going to drive some change in the degree to which we move and stay with telecommuting—are the economics of it. There are three major banks operating—this is just an instance—but there are three major banks operating in Manhattan: Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, and one other that’s slipping my memory at the moment. But these businesses in total employ 20,000 people that were coming into the city every single day. Those 20,000 people have to be put into office space, which amounts to about 10 million square feet of office space of some of the most expensive real estate in the world.
I think that employers are going to say, “Look, I can get better productivity out of my staff, I can reduce risk to those staff, their health and well-being, and I can cut back on the costs associated with operating those offices.” I think those are enormous economic incentives for businesses to support and sustain the move to telecommuting. And I think that as that happens, the removal of some of those employees from these central business districts has huge implications for all of the smaller businesses that operate underneath those businesses to support their operations. So the potential kind of downstream effects of telecommuting are really, really significant, I think, for the life and health of cities.
The Autonomy of the Remote Worker [07:12]
Bob Zadek: You know, there’s an interesting—this is of course a libertarian podcast and live radio show, so of course libertarianism and individual freedom and responsibility are never far from the topic of the day. And what occurred to me is—and I would like your comments because I’m going to venture into the psychology of work and the relationship between the worker and the employer, an area where you have enormous expertise—but it would seem to me that a worker working from home outside of the direct control of the employer—you mentioned employers were skeptical, they have to keep an eye or they feel they have to keep an eye on employees, etc., you quoted that social media thought that you read somewhere and of course we all have read the same thing—so my question is this, or my observation is:
Wouldn’t you say that to some degree—you can comment on how much—working at home gives an employee now the sense that they are independent? They are kind of an entrepreneur in a way, or more of an entrepreneur and less of an employee. They sort of dictate exactly when they work to some degree, they have control over the environment, they certainly have control over whether the shirt they’re wearing at work has a food stain and stuff like that. So isn’t there kind of a freeing to the worker aspect to the relationship with the job, and isn’t that healthy for the employer and the employee? After all, productivity can be objectively measured, so there should not be a loss of productivity. Isn’t it at that level, at the psychological level, at the freedom level, isn’t it a gain for both the employer and the employee, or am I just over-aggrandizing that?
Brent Orrell: So I’m really of two minds. Obviously, at one level you’re probably right. You know, the stories that have emerged during the lockdowns of court proceedings that are occurring virtually with the judge and the lawyers all on camera, and judges getting kind of irked at the fact that these attorneys are sometimes laying in bed or haven’t quite fully dressed for the day.
Bob Zadek: Brent, men no longer—Brent, if I may interrupt—men no longer own neckties. Go ahead.
Brent Orrell: Right. Yeah. So again, this is an aspect where you will see some, I think, some acceleration of those kinds of informality in work.
The Social Necessity of Proximity [08:45]
Brent Orrell: At another level, though, I think it’s problematic. And it goes back to what I said at the very top of our conversation, which is that cities are social, right? Well, why are they social? Why do human beings need to be together? And that’s because that’s how we develop as human beings. We, at an individual level, while we have high regard for the independence of the individual and their uniqueness, we also recognize that human beings require other human beings in order to become fully human.
Bob Zadek: Well, I don’t deny at all the social aspects, but the question is why can’t humans—and we’re going to go to break on this note so you’ll have 30 seconds to reflect upon your answer—why can’t humans get their social life from where they live, and why do they have to get it from their work life? Why can’t there simply be a separation between those parts of the human experience that you get from your home and those parts that you get from work? The two don’t have to be linked.
This is Bob Zadek. I’m speaking with Brent Orrell. We are discussing the future of cities. The short title is: Has the coronavirus made cities toast? Are we finished with cities? Are cities essential for our life? Of course they are, but to what degree? We’ll explore the possible political, economic, and profound social effects upon life in America if more and more workers stop living where they work. There is a break between the two. What will happen to political, economic, and social life in America? It is a fascinating exploration. More to follow in 30 short seconds. Please stay tuned.
[Commercial break]
The Suburban Shift [09:47]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to The Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show on all of radio. This morning we are speaking with Brent Orrell. Brent is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a wonderful D.C.-based think tank, an organization that provides lots of written and podcast thoughtful commentary on economic and social and political issues. Brent is a resident fellow there and, important for this morning’s show, Brent broadcasts a podcast, Hardly Working, a must-listen-to if you are at all interested in your relationship to work and every American’s relationship to work in America.
Brent, we are talking about the future of cities. Now, Brent, you have described cities in the opening as having four essential characteristics. They are important to social life—and we mean something far more than dating, we mean the entire experience of humans interacting with one another. You analogized cities to a circus: lots of stuff going on all over the place, all very stimulating and makes life good for all. You have described cities as being self-compounding: they internally grow, all of the positive qualities of cities invite more people to want to be part of the action, and therefore they internally grow just because they are cities. And you also have pointed out that cities have the somewhat contradictory characteristics of they are delicate—the virus shows that, and many other perhaps hurricanes as well—but notwithstanding the fact that they are delicate, they are also resilient. And those are wonderful—that’s a wonderful summary, Brent, that you gave us on what makes a city a city.
Now, with that background, there’s no doubt that even though the cities offer those positive qualities, there are many workers in cities who commute. They are forced to commute because that’s where the job is. So they—let’s just take the metropolitan area of New York City where I grew up and where I spent half my life. There are lots of folks who live in the suburbs, leafy, manicured lawns, townhouses and the like, because they like that environment and they like the social life of living in the suburbs. And why do they commute? Because that’s where the jobs are. But they certainly don’t choose to live in the city; they choose to use the city for one aspect of their life: provide income, and the suburbs for their social life and for the quality of life the suburbs provide.
Now, once we start more telecommuting and working from home, now people get to pick where they want to live—the suburbs. They no longer have to commute, because that’s the only difference. What happens to the cities?
The Future of Urban Infrastructure [11:13]
Brent Orrell: So, you know, it’s all speculation, right? So that’s what we’re here to do. We’re here to speculate on what the future might hold. So what I see is—maybe we should restrict our speculations to kind of what’s the immediate look like, what’s the next two to five years look like in the wake of the coronavirus for cities.
So cities are going to have to be reconfigured. That’s one thing. I talked earlier about how some of the banks are thinking about their staff in the city. Some of them are arguing, “No, no, no, we’re going to maintain the same physical footprint because we’re going to have to still have people there, but we’re going to have to create more space inside our offices to sort of protect against infection in the workplace.” So they’re saying we’re not going to shrink our footprint. That’s only true if you think of the footprint as just being buildings and square footage.
What I’m thinking of is the human footprint, the number of people that could potentially find themselves no longer coming in on a daily basis, or coming in at all, and just working from home using Zoom, using Workplace, using all of these new platforms that we have. Maybe we get better technology—I think that that’s almost a certainty in terms of telecommunications technology that will increasingly make us feel like we’re able to be present with one another even though it’s a hologram of us rather than our physical bodies. All sorts of things are on the horizon that we can’t see.
But I do think in the short term, there’s going to be a lot of reconfiguring of urban life to make it safer—not to make it safe, because you can’t make it safe in a complete and ultimate sense, but you can make it safer. And that means more distance and fewer people in the cities. I just don’t see in that scenario in the next two to five years how that doesn’t have a significant impact on the way that cities operate. Fewer people means less economic activity, not inside those corporate headquarters necessarily, but for all the businesses that surround them. That means lower employment for people who—taking New York as an example—people who live in Queens or they live in Brooklyn or the Bronx and they’re dependent upon the jobs that are created, the secondary job effects that are created by these larger operations in the central business districts.
So that’s one effect. There’s an employment effect. There’s, I think, there could be a significant revenue effect for the city of New York as tax bases are under pressure from lower density in the cities, as well as things like income tax and sales tax as people do more of their business and live more of their lives outside the cities. If you reduce the city’s tax base—and again, using New York City as an example, it’s an $85 billion budget. About $10 billion of that a year is commercial real estate taxes. If you figure maybe they lose a third of that, that puts a lot of pressure on city services, on schools, libraries, police forces, fire, all of the infrastructure and amenities that help to make urban life sustainable and attractive. So you could wind up in kind of a vicious downward spiral, at least for a while, as cities go through this reconfiguration and become less dense.
Political and Social Decentralization [13:13]
Bob Zadek: Now, you use the phrase “vicious downward spiral.” I would not use the word “vicious.” I agree—you and I 100% agree on what you have just said. However, I see, as my imagination takes off, I see profound effects upon not just the New York and other major metropolitan areas, but on the country.
And taking what you have just said, Brent, and extending it just a tiny bit: once the link between where you live and where you work, once that link is to some degree severed, now you no longer have to live in—using again the metropolitan area of New York City—you no longer have to look for a home as close to New York City as possible to shorten the commute. You now can live anywhere. There’s nothing different between New Jersey, if you’re working in New York or if your office used to be in New York, New Jersey and Boise, Idaho are the same. So now humans are free to live wherever they want.
I did a show a couple of weeks ago, “Voting with Your Feet” with Ilya Somin. Now people can really pick where they want to live without any regard to where they work. That is freeing. We like freedom. And then, Brent, I’ll add one more component. As people no longer work and live in the same place, as you pointed out, the economic base declines, which means both population and economic power decline in the cities, which means it increases in the rest of the country, thereby spreading more evenly economic and voting power and diluting the intense economic and voting power of the major metropolitan areas.
One more comment, and then I’d like to hear from you how off I am. Once that happens, then the power of the public service unions, which derive their power from large cities, that power is diluted, which means pressures on pensions decline, pressures on city budgets decline, and political power of the teachers’ union, the transport workers’ union, the prison guards’ union, the policemen’s union—very much in the news—the power of all those large public service national unions declines, which means power gets dispersed throughout the country. And the country becomes, compliments of the virus, more small-d democratic with power spread throughout the country. In short, I find the virus is a gift from God in the long run in terms of economic and political power being dispersed in the country. That’s my overly rosy, taking great liberties view of what might happen to cities as a result of the virus. You are free now to rain on my parade.
Brent Orrell: Well, that’s a compelling, I think, analysis of a potential future. And it’s—I would say you’ve got the weight of history behind you. When we talk about—you know, there are some people who argue, you know, cities will always be there and this is a lot of fear-mongering or, you know, crisis-mongering. But the reality is this has been the process that we’ve been going through in the United States ever since the end of the Second World War. The suburbanization of American life has continued apace.
And I share your estimation and your strong preference for people to be free to choose where they live and that we shouldn’t be mandating or coercing or, you know, telling people that their desire to live in a cabin in Idaho is somehow wrong. I don’t think it is wrong. I think people need to be free. That’s what makes America what it is.
So what I would temper the comments with is that, first, cities have traditionally formed a really vital function in terms of pulling together disparate people from disparate backgrounds and disparate skill sets that have helped to drive innovation. Now, we may in fact be able to do that better and better without being physically proximate to one another. But I tend to believe that there’s something very special and important about face-to-face communication. Since 90% of human communication isn’t verbal, it’s non-verbal, and just because we don’t—we aren’t thinking about it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening all the time when we’re in looking at a business community.
But you could apply this to education or other fields as well, that education and business activity aren’t just a matter of transferring information from one person to another. They are in fact about deeper levels of communication that occur and kind of bring our thoughts into life. So that’s one pushback I would have, is that I don’t think we can virtualize everything even in business. And I take your earlier point that maybe people would be better off if they didn’t derive so much of their social life from their work. I do agree with that.
But there are other factors at play here that I think we have to pay attention to, and one of them is not everybody can move. And that’s the point I was making in the Law & Liberty piece that you picked up on about pandemics’ elites in society, is that elites always have the option to opt out of a bad situation and they generally exercise that option. Middle and lower income groups do not have that option. And when the city goes to pot, the worst effects of that are going to be felt by the most vulnerable people and could, you know, drive a lot of very unfortunate kinds of outcomes for them and for the broader society. So it’s not—by changing one thing, you change a whole bunch of other things, and you can’t even see the second-order effects of what you’re changing. So it’s going to happen, I agree, it’s going to happen, and some of the effects will be really, really positive for many, many people, and some of it’s going to be quite bad for other people.
Closing [14:52]
Bob Zadek: I agree with you that there’s no doubt that certain occupations, certain professions require interaction, face-to-face time, particularly to the extent that creativity is involved. The results of collaboration cannot be replicated by telephone calls and the like and Zoom meetings and stuff like that. There’s no question.
But the point is what the virus is accelerating, what the virus is providing the petri dish for, is people where it works severing the mandated connection between where you live and where you work. That means you—the two—one doesn’t force the other decision. You pick where you want to live and what social life you want to have where you’re going to live. You are free to do that, and that has nothing to do with where you work. Indeed, the concept of where you work disappears. You don’t work anywhere. You work for somebody, you add value to some enterprise by your brain and your skill and your labor. You add value and you’re paid for that. But the value can be added from anywhere where it works.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that this will provide enormous freedom that doesn’t now exist among workers who right now had to live in one place, maybe where they didn’t want to live, simply because the job was there. And the virus will now make the job be where you are, not where the head office or regional office of your employer is. That was my only point. And then once we understand that link is broken, that opens up all kinds of, as you said quoting Milton Friedman, freedom to choose. You now are free to choose where you live and how you live and what you can afford to live, and that’s not imposed upon you. And that to me gives me goosebumps, compliments of the virus. And the cities by the way will always provide cultural base and social base and the circus aspects and collaboration where needed, but the choice will be yours. And so the message to me is it is freeing. The virus will free us from the link between where we live and where we work.
Brent, we have only a minute left. Tell us about your podcast, Hardly Working. We have about a minute left. Help our friends to understand what they will learn from becoming addicted to your podcast as I am.
Brent Orrell: Well, thank you Bob. That’s really kind from somebody who’s been in this work for so long and I’m a total novice. So my work at AEI falls under the heading of vocation, career, and work. And that gives me a pretty broad mandate to look at a wide variety of topics that touch on both the tangible aspects of work—what kind of jobs do you want, how do you think about finding them—
Bob Zadek: We have 30 seconds, Brent. Just give us the link to Hardly Working.
Brent Orrell: Okay. You find it on the AEI website, aei.org. Look under multimedia. All of our podcasts are listed there, and we have a number of excellent ones. So I hope that some of your listeners will check it out.
Bob Zadek: It’s addictive and I hope all of our friends out there love it as much as I do. Thanks a lot, Brent, for your time this hour, this Sunday morning. And thanks to my friends out there for joining us. I’ll be back again next Sunday. Have a good rest of the weekend.
Brent Orrell: Thank you.