CEO薪酬的真实问题，以及为什么年轻男性不再做志愿者

本节目由Odoo赞助支持。经营企业已经够难了，干嘛还要用十几个互不相通的软件来给自己添堵？

Support for this show comes from Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other?

介绍Odoo。

Introducing Odoo.

这是你这辈子唯一需要的商业软件。

It's the only business software you'll ever need.

它是一个一体化、完全整合的平台，让您的工作变得更轻松。

It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier.

客户关系管理、财务会计、库存管理、电子商务，还有更多功能。

CRM, accounting, inventory, ecommerce, and more.

最棒的是什么？

And the best part?

Odoo以不到几分之一的价格，取代了多个昂贵的系统。

Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost.

所以，成千上万的企业都选择了切换到Odoo。

That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch.

那你为什么不来试试呢？

So why not you?

去 odoo.com 免费试用 Odoo 吧。

Try Odoo for free at odoo.com.

就是 odoo.com。

That's odoo.com.

Support for this show comes from Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other?

Support for this show comes from Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other?

Introducing Odoo.

Introducing Odoo.

It's the only business software you'll ever need.

It's the only business software you'll ever need.

It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier CRM, accounting, inventory, ecommerce, and more.

It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier CRM, accounting, inventory, ecommerce, and more.

And the best part?

And the best part?

Odoo 以不到十分之一的成本，取代了多个昂贵的系统。

ODOO replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost.

所以才有成千上万家企业选择了切换到 Odoo。

That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch.

那你为什么还不试试呢？

So why not you?

去 odoo.com 免费试用 Odoo。

Try Odoo for free at odoo.com.

就是 odoo.com。

That's odoo.com.

大家好，我是《精彩餐桌》播客的主持人弗朗西斯·拉姆。

Hey, it's Francis Lam, host of the Splendid Table podcast.

每周我们的节目都会探讨美食与生活的交汇之处。

Every week on our show, we celebrate the intersection of food and life.

这个月，我们推出了一档新系列，叫《烹饪大师》。

And this month, we're releasing a new series called Culinary Masters.

它聚焦了美食界一些最具影响力的人物。

It highlights some of the most iconic people in the food world.

我们重新回顾了那些彻底改变我们烹饪方式和饮食观念的人的对话。

We're revisiting conversations with people who have fundamentally changed how many of us cook and think about food.

比如雅克·佩兰、克劳迪娅·罗丁，还有托尼·伯纳丹，这只是其中几位。

People like Jacques Pepin, Claudia Rodin, and Tony Bourdain to name a few.

你现在就可以收听这个特别系列。

You can listen to this special series now.

只需在你的播客应用里搜索《The Splendid Table》。

Just search for The Splenda Table in your podcast app.

欢迎收听《Profg的办公时间》。

Welcome to officehours with profg.

这是节目里我们回答大家关于商业、科技创业以及任何你关心话题的环节。

This is the part of the show where we answer your questions about business, big tech entrepreneurship, and whatever else is on your mind.

如果你想在下一期提问，可以录一段语音发送到 officehours@propgmedia.com。

If you'd like to submit a question for next time, you can send a voice recording to officehours@propgmedia.com.

再次提醒，邮箱是 officehours@propgmedia.com。

Again, that's officehours@propgmedia.com.

或者在 Scott Galloway 的 Reddit 子版块里留言提问，我们可能会在下一期节目中选用。

Or post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we just might feature it in an upcoming episode.

我们收到的第一个问题来自 Reddit 用户 Stigmat，他问：2025 年，首席执行官的薪酬增长速度是普通员工的 20 倍。

Our first question comes from Reddit user and Stigmat and asks, okay, in 2025, CEO pay spiked 20 times faster than worker pay.

你还认为我们对此无能为力，或者不该采取任何监管措施吗？

Do you still think there is nothing we can do or should do to regulate this emerging class of oligarchs?

我可不记得自己说过这种话，老板。

I'm not sure I ever said that, boss.

那我们来看一下数据。

So, okay, so let's look at the data.

根据乐施会的一项研究，2024 年到 2025 年间，标普 500 企业 CEO 的薪酬上涨了 26%，而私营部门员工的时薪仅实际增长了 1.3%。也就是说，仅在美国，CEO 薪酬的增长速度就是普通员工的 21 倍。

According to an Oxfam study, S and P 500 CEO pay rose 26 between 2024 and 2025, while the average hourly earnings for private sector workers rose just 1.3% in real terms, meaning CEO pay grew twenty twenty one times faster than workers wages in The US alone.

这份报告覆盖了 33 个国家的 1500 家公司，发现去年 CEO 的平均年薪达到了 850 万美元，而 2019 年时还只有 550 万美元。

The report covered 1,500 companies across 33 counties and found that the average CEO pocketed 8 and a half million dollars last year, up from 5,500,000 in 2019.

再来看一些数据。

So some more data.

1965年，美国大公司CEO的薪酬是普通员工的21倍。

CEOs of major US companies were paid 21 times as much as the typical worker in 1965.

到1978年，这个比例涨到了31比1，1989年升到60比1，2000年股市泡沫顶峰时更是飙升到380比1。

That ratio grew to 31 to one by '78, 60 to one by 1989, surged to three eighty to one in 2,000 at the height of the stock market bubble.

到了2024年，这个数字是281比1。

In 2024, it was two eighty one to one.

即使和其他高收入人群相比，CEO们的薪酬也高得离谱。

CEOs are paid excessively even relative to other high earners.

从1965年到1978年，大型企业CEO的收入几乎是顶尖0.1%高收入者的三倍。

Between 1965 and 1978, the average CEO at a large firm was paid almost three times as much as the average top point 1% earner.

到2023年，这个比例已经上升到7.5倍。

By 2023, the ratio had risen to 7.5 x.

我举几个例子吧。

I'll just give you some examples.

2024年，星巴克首席执行官布莱恩·尼科尔的收入高达九千八百万美元。

The Starbucks CEO, Brian Niccol, received $98,000,000 in 2024.

这比普通星巴克员工的收入高出六千六百倍。

That's 6,600 times more than the medium Starbucks worker.

这名员工得从公元前4600年就开始工作，才能赚到CEO一年的收入。

That worker would have had to have started working in 4600 BC just to earn what the CEO made in one year.

特斯拉曾提议给埃隆·马斯克一项十年内最高可达一万亿美元的薪酬方案。

Tesla's proposed a pay package for Elon Musk worth up to $1,000,000,000,000 over ten years.

情况真是越来越离谱了。

I mean it just gets worse and worse.

那我们该怎么办呢？

So what to do about it?

我觉得资本主义的核心就是不限制收入上限，我也支持基于市场供需、同时提高最低工资的劳动力机制。

I think capitalism is about not putting ceilings on earnings, and I believe in a market demand versus supply based labor pool with higher minimum wage.

别想那么多。

Don't think.

我曾经在Urban Outfitters的董事会任职，那里的CEO说过，当公司因为门店员工工资太低而受到批评时，

I was on the board of Urban Outfitters, and the CEO there said, you know, when we came under fire for some of the retail workers at Urban Outfitters stores not making a lot of money, came under fire for paying them so little.

他说，我们相信劳动力市场的供需关系。

And he said we believe supply and demand around the labor force.

不过话说回来，他在年底还是决定把相当一部分利润分给了门店员工。

Now having said that, he also agreed at the end of the year to share a decent chunk of the profits with the store employees.

不管怎样，这家公司由汉尼家族控股，我觉得他们人挺不错的。

He's a anyways, the company's controlled by the Haney family, I found them to be very decent people.

其实我对CEO赚几十亿美金没什么意见。

Anyways, I don't have a problem with CEOs making billions of dollars.

我真的没什么意见。

I don't have a problem.

我不希望政府去干预薪酬比例。

I don't want the government to regulate ratios.

我认为政府该做的应该是这样：

What I think the government should do is the following.

埃隆·马斯克赚一千亿美元，我一点都不觉得有问题。

I don't have a problem with Elon Musk making $1,000,000,000,000.

我觉得他那万亿收入应该按70%的边际税率缴税。

I think he should pay 70% marginal tax rate on that trillion dollars.

我觉得企业也应该按40%的最低替代税率纳税。

I think corporations should pay an alternative minimum tax of 40%.

现在他们实际只交了大约22%。

They're paying about 22%.

要是把所有避税漏洞都算上，平均税率可能只有15%到17%左右。

I think the average is probably closer to 17 or 15% when they stitch in all their loopholes.

我对人赚大钱这事本身毫无意见。

So I have no problem with people making a ton of money.

我想要的是更公平的税收制度。

What I want is a more progressive tax policy.

现在的问题是，高管薪酬大部分以股票形式发放，而股票的税率比工资低得多。

And what happens now is that because the majority of CEO compensation comes in the form of equity, equity is taxed at a lower rate than salary.

这简直荒谬透顶。

That makes no fucking sense.

回头看看里根时代。

Go back to what Reagan.

里根以前说，那只是收入。

Reagan used to say it was just income.

问题根本不是富人和穷人之间的对立，而是所有者和打工者之间的对立，是普通人和超级富豪之间的对立。

It wasn't the battle isn't rich versus poor so much as its owners versus earners, and everyone versus the super rich.

如果你是一家律所并购部门的负责人，年薪一百万，住在新泽西，你大概要交50%的税。

If you're making a million dollars in salary as the head of the M and A practice for a law firm, and you're living in New Jersey, you're probably paying 50% tax rate.

但如果你成了公司高管，持有上市公司股票，拿到一百万的股票收益，税负却低得多。

But if you get to a point where you own or you're the general counsel of a firm with public equity, and you get a million dollars in stock, you pay a lot less in tax rate.

这简直荒谬透顶。

That makes no fucking sense.

我们什么时候开始觉得，钱比汗水更崇高了？

So when did we decide money is more noble than sweat?

所以我觉得，我们得让打工人的税率更公平、更低一些，同时提高业主们的税率，或者启用最低替代税，或者直接上调他们的税率。

And so I think we need to equalize and lower the rates for earners and increase the rates, or the alternative minimum tax, or the rates that owners pay.

因为本质上，他们的财富每年都在复利增长，没有任何阻力。

Because essentially their wealth compounds annually with no friction.

如果你年薪一百万美元，每年涨十万，我们每年都会拿走百分之二十到三十。

If you're a stock, and every year you increase by a $100,000 at your salary, we're gonna take 20 or 30% of it every year.

所以你的收入根本攒不到特别大的数目。

So it just doesn't it never grows that big.

但如果你手上有价值一百万美元的股票，它可以免税递延，持续复利增长，除非你卖出，否则永远不会被征税。

But if you own a $100,000 worth of stock, it can grow tax deferred and keep compounding without ever getting clipped unless you sell it.

我完全支持高额薪酬。

So I'm all for enormous pay packages.

我觉得任何试图阻拦高薪的做法，都会引发各种奇怪扭曲的行为。

I think anything to try and get in the way of that is just going to create all sorts of weird perverted behavior.

那我们到底该怎么做？

What do we need to do?

我们至少得保证员工每小时挣25美元。

We need to ensure that at a minimum employees are making $25 an hour.

在美国一些大城市地区，这个标准可能会让鸡肉加工厂撑不下去——那也没关系，但在某些生活成本较低的地区，每小时20美元也能维持一个中产家庭的生活。

In certain urban counties in America, which would put, you know, chicken processing plants out of business fine, then you could adjust it down for certain territories where you can manage a middle class household on $20 an hour.

行，可以。

Okay, fine.

但对大多数地方、大多数人来说，最低工资就该定在每小时25美元。

But for most of us, most places in the nation, $25 an hour minimum wage.

如果从七十年代起，工资能跟生产率和通胀同步增长，现在早就该是23美元了。

It would be 23 if it had just kept up with productivity and inflation since the seventies.

除此之外，随你怎么定。

In addition, have at it.

星巴克的CEO赚八千七百万，那就该对他那笔收入征70%的税。

Pay the CEO of Starbucks $87,000,000 He should be taxed 70% on that money.

为什么？

Why?

你想要的，是一个负担最轻的税收体系。

What you want is a tax system that is the least taxing.

当你对星巴克的首席执行官征70%的税——我相信他是个不错的人——结果会怎样呢？

And when you tax the CEO of Starbucks, who I'm sure is a lovely man, 70%, this is what happens.

什么都不会发生。

Nothing.

你的意思是，政府能多收点钱，用来减少赤字、投资学校、海军和公园之类的，但对他本人和家人来说，幸福一点都没增加。

I mean you put more money into the government so we can reduce our deficit and invest in schools and the Navy and parks and what have you, but nothing happens to him or his family in terms of happiness.

丹尼尔·卡尼曼，我非常敬佩的一位思想家，做过很多关于金钱的研究。

Daniel Kahneman, one of my intellectual role models, did a study, talked a lot about money.

钱能带来幸福，但只到某个程度为止。

Above a certain amount, money can buy happiness up until a certain point.

一旦你有了医疗保障、像样的假期、住房，能扛住经济冲击——这些花销已经不少了，再往上，幸福就不再增加了。

And then once you can afford health care, nice vacations, housing, an economic shock, which is a lot of money, it levels out.

再说一个常见的误解。

Now another myth.

亿万富翁并不快乐。

Billionaires are unhappy.

不对。

No.

亿万富翁的幸福程度并不比百万富翁低，但也并不会更高。

Billionaires are no less happy than millionaires, but they're no happier.

如果马斯克再多赚一万亿，也不会因此更快乐，但成千上万的家庭却能因为普惠托育获得显著的幸福感提升，那我的想法是，咱们不如回到五六十到七十年代，那时候的税收制度要进步得多。

So if you're gonna get no incremental happiness from if Elon Musk is gonna get no incremental happiness from that trillion dollars, but hundreds of thousands of households would get a lot of incremental happiness from universal child care, then my attitude is let's go back to the fifties, sixties, and seventies where we had a much more progressive tax structure.

总的来说，我觉得你没法阻止CEO们赚取巨额财富的市场机制。

In sum, I don't believe you can get in the way of market dynamics around CEOs making a shit ton of money.

优秀的CEO确实能创造巨大价值。

A good CEO adds a lot of value.

让我补充一点细节。

Let me add some nuance.

我曾经在好几家公司担任薪酬委员会成员，事情就是这么失控的。

I've been on the compensation committee of a bunch of companies, and this is how it got out of fucking control.

每年，Tower的母公司都会来董事会，我们付给他们25万美元，让他们做一次薪酬调研。

Every year, Tower's parent comes in to the board, and we pay them a quarter of $1,000,000 to do a compensation study.

他们就说，好的。

And they say, okay.

珍妮特·罗宾逊，我曾经是《纽约时报》董事会成员，她掌管着一家市值50亿美元的媒体公司。

Janet Robinson, I was on the board of the New York Times, is the CEO of a 5,000,000,000 media company.

这是普通CEO在50亿美金规模媒体公司里的平均薪酬水平。

This is what the average person at 50% makes of CEOs of $5,000,000 media companies.

他们每年拿300万美元。

They make $3,000,000.

但我们说，等等，珍妮特人挺好的。

And we say, but wait, Janet's nice.

我们不想只按50%的标准给她发薪。

We don't want to just pay her at 50%.

我们想给她60%到70%，所以最后给了她380万美元。

We want to pay her at 60 or 70, so we pay Janet 3.8.

但问题就在这儿。

But here's the problem.

当你给员工发比中位数高20%的工资时，听起来好像没多少。

When you pay people 20% above the median, that doesn't sound like a lot.

可其他公司一看，中位数立马往上蹿，大家都得跟着攀比。

But then every other company, the median starts to explode, and every company has to keep up with the Joneses.

而那些不打高尔夫、跟董事会没啥交情的人，工资只比通胀略高一点。

Meanwhile, the people who aren't don't play golf or have relationships with the board just get slightly above inflation.

但CEO不一样，人挺不错，你跟他熟了，他还能推荐你进董事会——你本人在《纽约时报》董事会一年还挣25万美元呢，自然想多给点。

But the CEO, who's a good guy or a good gal who you get to know, who, by the way, puts you on the board and you're making a quarter of $1,000,000 a year on the board of The New York Times, you wanna pay her above average.

所以你给高20%，听着不多，其实已经到第60百分位了，这意味着每三年半，CEO的薪酬就得翻一倍，因为别人都得跟着涨。

So if you pay 20% above average, which doesn't sound like a lot, that's just at the 60 percentile, that means every three and a half years you're doubling CEO compensation because everybody else has to adjust as well.

所以咱们看到薪酬一路飙升，简直爆炸式增长。

So we have seen a skyrocketing and an explosion in compensation.

这事儿其实更多是税制问题，而不是政府想插手薪酬决定。

This is about tax policy more than the government trying to interfere with compensation.

谢谢你的提问。

I appreciate the question.

第二个问题来自安德莉亚。

Question number two comes from Andrea.

嗨，斯科特。

Hi, Scott.

我是个自由派，开斯巴鲁，提着布袋的乡村基督教白人女性。

I'm a liberal Subaru driving tote bag carrying rural Christian white woman.

但作为现实的经济观察者，我差不多有75%的时间都赞同你的观点。

But as an economic realist, I found myself agreeing with you about 75% of the time.

每周我都去教堂外给无家可归的人分发早餐包，还经常接待学校的学生团体，帮我们搬重物、做三明治、装纸袋，然后分发给任何需要并开口求助的人。

Each week, I volunteer to distribute breakfast bags to the homeless outside my church, and we frequently host student groups from schools to help us move heavy bulk items, make sandwiches, pack paper bags, and hand them out to anyone who needs and asks.

每周我都发现，来当志愿者的全是女孩。

And each week, I find that my volunteers are always girls.

就算是体育队来帮忙，也都是女生队。

Even when it's athletic teams, it's only girls' teams.

我刚开始教书的时候就知道，男生在社团和课外活动方面总是参与得比较少。

When I first started teaching, I knew that boys were always less involved in clubs and extracurriculars in general.

但过了十年、十五年，好一点的男生就更难找了。

But ten or fifteen down years down the road, good testosterone is even harder to find.

我不确定该怪网络上的男性社群、特朗普，还是家长等等。

I don't know whether to blame the manosphere, Trump, the parents, etcetera.

与其纠结问题出在哪，我想以经济学家的身份问你们，激励机制是怎样的？

But rather than focusing on the problem, my question for you as an economist is about incentives.

我们该怎么激励年轻男性更多地参与社区事务？

How do we incentivize our young men to engage more in community issues?

我们该怎么激励他们的父母，引导他们走上正途？

How do we incentivize their parents to lead them on the way they should go?

我们该怎么激励学校、教练、组织负责人等等，开始对年轻男性提出更高的公民素质要求？

How do we incentivize schools, coaches, organization leaders, etcetera, to start holding their young men to a higher level of citizenship.

因为很明显，有人已经在打击他们的积极性了。

Because obviously, someone has de incentivized them.

再次感谢，相信我，我明白你的意思——培养更强壮的男性，长远来看能让女性和孩子更安全。

Thanks again, and trust me, I hear you when you say that building stronger men makes for safer women and children in the long run.

谢谢，安德莉亚。

Thanks, Andrea.

大家好，斯巴鲁车主们。

Hello, Subaru drivers.

首先，我总觉得大家说的都一模一样，好像没人有别的看法。

So first off, I can't it is it's as if no one everyone always says the same thing.

不过，我并不总是认同斯科特·加洛韦的观点。

Well, don't always agree with Scott Galloway.

我经常听到‘75%’这种说法。

I get the 75% a lot.

这简直太滑稽了。

It's hilarious.

我大部分评论开头都会说，其实很多人心里同意我，只是不好意思说出口。

And most of my comments I would start with, people are embarrassed to just agree with me.

他们总说，我不总是同意斯科特，或者我有75%的时候同意斯科特。

They say, well, I don't always agree with Scott or I agree with Scott 75% of the time.

我对这个75%的比例特别感兴趣，因为这个数字真的经常出现。

And I'm fascinated by that ratio because the 75 number comes up a lot.

首先，我确实经常出错，简直没完没了。

One, I do get it wrong a lot constantly.

我尽量说真话，但有时候说得太直接，结果就成了完全站不住脚的观点。

I'm trying to be as unfiltered as possible, and sometimes it results in hot takes that are quite frankly are just the wrong take.

不过我也想说，感谢大家愿意听我说，因为如果你只听那些你总是认同的人，你很难学到新东西，只会让自己的观点越来越固化，把自己困在信息茧房里。

But what I would also say is I appreciate people tolerating me because I do think it's important to listen to people that if you listen to someone you always agree with, you're probably not gonna learn a hell of a lot or it's just gonna cement your opinion and probably put you further in the center of your bubble.

说到底，我真希望能给出个更周全的回答。

Anyways, I wish I had a more thoughtful answer.

我当时有两种感受。

I had two emotions.

第一种是，你听起来特别温暖，就像那种真正代表美国精神的人。

The first is one, you sound lovely and you sound like the kind of thing that or the person that really is the fabric of America.

而我的第二种感受是，天啊，这真让人难过，对吧？

And my second emotion was, gosh, this is such a bummer, right?

到处都能看到这种情况，真的让人很沮丧。

Such a bummer that I see this everywhere.

我们总在谈论导师的重要性，尤其是男性导师对年轻男孩或年轻男子的影响。

Talk a lot about the importance of mentorship, especially male mentors in a young boy's life or a young man's life.

申请成为纽约‘大姐姐’项目的女性人数，是男性的三倍。

There are three times as many women applying to be big sisters of New York as there are men.

说实话，我对此感到羞愧。

And I'm embarrassed to say it.

我想我以前就是那样的人。

Think I was one of those men.

直到四十岁之前，我都没怎么参与过慈善活动。

I think up until the age of 40 I just wasn't very philanthropic.

我不确定这是否跟非营利组织越来越女性化有关。

I don't know if it's the feminization of nonprofits.

这被认为更女性化。

It's seen as more feminine.

我不确定是不是因为女性更有爱心。

I don't know if it's because women are more nurturing.

我不确定这是否是天性使然。

I don't know if it's instinctual.

也许女性从小就被教育要更乐于助人、更敏感，更愿意取悦别人。

Don't know if it's women are brought up to be more service minded, more sensitive, to be pleasers.

说实话，我不知道能做些什么。

The honest answer is I don't know what can be done.

我觉得，无论是正规体育项目还是其他组织性团体，都应该把志愿服务作为一项常规要求。

I think that as a standard practice among organized sports and just organized clubs, there has to be a service component.

此外，女性气质和男性气质都是社会建构的，我们可以往这些角色里注入任何我们想赋予的内容。

In addition, femininity and masculinity are social constructs, and get to fill those vessels with whatever we want.

我最近一直在想，我写过一本关于男子气概的书，当时我说过，男子气概的三大支柱是养家者、保护者和生育者。

And I've been thinking a lot about, I wrote a book on masculinity and I was saying basically the three legs of the stool are provider, protector, procreator.

我觉得我之前漏掉了一点，而且漏掉了很多——我一直在想，怎么才能优雅地把一种包含服务精神的男性气概理想融入进来。

I think where I missed it, and I missed a lot, is I'm trying to figure out an elegant way to incorporate an aspirational vision of masculinity that includes service.

我觉得衡量男性气概的一个不错标准，就是看你行动时的出发点，尤其是我跟那些拥有社交媒体粉丝的年轻男生聊天时，你会更看重服务，还是更看重关注？

And I think a decent test for masculinity in your actions, and when I talk to young men, especially when they get social media followings, are you optimizing for service or for attention?

很遗憾，我们很多不太合格的榜样，总是在拼命追求关注，而不是真正的服务。

I think unfortunately a lot of our weaker role models are constantly optimizing for attention and not for actual service.

有些人会说，品格的准确定义就是，没人看见的时候，你依然选择做对的事。

And some people would say a decent definition of character is doing the right thing when no one's looking.

但我一直在想，我们该怎么在学校的教育、宗教机构里，特别是对年轻男性，把男性气概和强者形象建立在服务的基础上？

But I wonder how we can incorporate, especially among young men through our schools, our religious institutions, that masculinity and the strong man has a strong foundation in service.

很多宗教机构在这方面其实做得很好。

And a lot of religious institutions do a great job of this.

我记得我爸爸结过四次婚，离过四次婚，至少我们所知道的是这样。

I remember my dad was married and divorced four times, as far as we know.

我记得我们家曾经是加州韦斯特莱克一家长老会教会的成员。

And I remember going to, we were a member of a Presbyterian church out in Westlake, California.

平时，整个教区、整个社区都会一起出去做志愿服务。

And on a regular basis the whole, what'd you call it, the whole parish, the whole community would go provide service.

我儿子的学校里，伦敦这边的孩子们都被要求参与某种志愿活动。

At my son's school they are forced to, here in London, engage in some sort of volunteer service.

我在想，如果我们能更好地鼓励男性榜样们多展现他们的奉献精神，会不会更好？

I wonder if some of the male role models, if we can do a better job of encouraging them to highlight their service.

我觉得很多运动员其实做得不错，但我也没法给出一个一劳永逸的解决方案。

And I do think actually a lot of athletes do a good job, but I don't have like a silver bullet here.

听到这些话，我真的觉得很失望。

And I find it just so disappointing to hear that.

你这么一说，我特别有共鸣。

And when you say it, it just resonates.

那我们来总结一下。

So let's try and summarize.

我觉得这跟男人不够慷慨没关系。

I don't think this is about men being less generous.

我依然相信情况并非如此。

I'm holding out that's not the case.

我觉得这跟激励、身份认同和社会结构有关。

I think it's about incentives, identity, and social structure.

志愿服务在某种程度上，是我们为年轻女性设计的、培养她们富有爱心、乐于讨好他人的途径，但这种模式并不太契合年轻男性的天性或他们获得认可的方式。

Volunteering is, to a certain extent, how we've designed pathways for young women to be more nurturing, to be pleasers, and it doesn't map as clearly to how young men are wired or rewarded.

他们被期待成为养家的人、球场上的明星，赚大钱，而志愿服务在他们眼里看起来回报太低。

They're expected to be providers, ballers, make a ton of money, and I think volunteering is seen as low ROI.

或者更直白点说，如果你想让更多的年轻男性参与志愿服务，就得把它包装成有地位感、能提升技能、或者团队协作的活动，而不仅仅是单纯的付出。

Or more bluntly, if you want more young men volunteering, you have to make it look more like status, skill building, or a team based activity, not just service, if you will.

但这确实是个问题。

But it's an issue.

而且我们应该在孩子很小的时候就开始解决这个问题。

It's one we should address at a very young age.

我想用我一开始说的话来收尾。

And I wanna finish where I started.

像您这样的人，才是这个国家的基石，我非常感激您和您的付出。

I think that people such as yourself are are the fabric of this country and very much appreciate you, and your service.

我希望您有儿子，也有女儿。

I hope you have boys and girls.

我只希望您有孩子。

I just hope you have kids.

短暂休息后，我们马上回来。

We'll be right back after a quick break.

本节目由Built Rewards赞助支持。

Support for the show comes from Built Rewards.

每个月付房租或房贷的时候，你从没想过还能拿回这笔钱。

When you pay your rent or mortgage every month, you never expect to see that money again.

你心里早就把它当成一笔支出，这很自然，因为以前根本不可能从房租或房贷里赚回任何回报。

You mentally write it off, and it makes sense to do that because it's never been possible to earn something back on your rent or mortgage until now.

现在，您终于可以从住房支出中获得回馈，而且收益不止是多出一点零花钱。

Makes it possible for you to get something back on your housing payment, and the rewards go beyond extra cash in your pocket.

作为BUILD会员，您每次支付房租或房贷，都能累积积分，用于与联合航空、凯悦等顶级旅行伙伴合作的旅行。

As a BUILD member, every housing payment earns you points you can use towards trips with top travel partners, including United and Hyatt.

此外，这些积分还能用来兑换Lyft乘车、亚马逊购物，还有更多用途。

Plus, you can use them towards Lyft rides, amazon.com purchases, and much more.

BUILD会员还能享受他们称之为‘社区管家’的服务。

BUILD members also get access to what they call a neighborhood concierge.

这就像一个嵌入您住所的私人助理，随时待命。

It works kind of like a personal assistant baked into your place of residence.

它能帮您订餐厅、预约健身课程，还能推荐本地新去处，全程累积奖励。

It can make restaurant reservations, book fitness classes, and find new local spots all while giving rewards.

您可能知道BUILD原本只对房租返利，但从2026年起，无论您住在哪里，房贷付款也能累积积分了。

You might know BUILD for rewarding members on just rent, but now as of 2026, BUILT members can also earn points on mortgage payments too wherever they live.

立即前往 joinbuilt.com/propg 加入您居住地的会员计划。

Join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com/propg.

网址是 joinbuilt.com/propg。

That's joinbilt.com/propg.

记得用我们的链接，这样他们才知道是你通过我们来的。

Make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you.

本节目由IMA赞助支持。

Support for the show comes from IMA.

每天好像都有新的流行饮食法，告诉你该戒掉什么、该加什么。

Every day it seems like there's a new fad diet that wants to tell you what to cut out and what to add in.

在你把冰箱塞满牛脂和三文鱼皮之前，先问问自己，一天下来你真的摄取到足够的维生素和矿物质了吗？

Before you go and fill your fridge with beef tallow and salmon skin, ask yourself if you're actually getting the full scope of vitamins and minerals you need in a day.

这里有个小建议，帮你补上缺口。

Here's a tip to help you fill in the gaps.

IM8的每日全能营养饮。

IM8's daily ultimate essentials drink.

IM8使用纯净成分。

IM8 uses clean ingredients.

它通过了NSF认证，所有成分都经过第三方检测，确保纯净无污染。

It's NSF certified, which means all the ingredients are third party tested for purity.

我们的同事埃德·埃尔森一直在喝iM8。

Our colleague Ed Elson has been enjoying iM8.

埃德，iM8。

Ed, iM8.

特别喜欢。

Love it.

喝起来补水又清爽，让我觉得自己特别健康。

Hydrating, refreshing, makes me feel like I'm healthy.

我希望自己真的健康，但喝了这个，我真的有这种感觉。

I hope I am healthy, but this makes me really feel that way.

所以我特别推崇iM8。

So big fan of I am eight.

不错。

Nice.

用iM8，给你的身体应得的呵护。

Give your body what it deserves with I am eight.

前往 im8health.com/propg，使用代码 propg 领取免费欢迎礼包。

Go to im8health.com/propg and use code propg for a free welcome kit.

五份旅行装小样，外加订单享九折优惠。

Five free travel sachets plus 10% off your order.

访问 imnumber8health.com/propg，输入代码 propg，免费领取欢迎礼包。

That's imnumber8health.com/propg code propg for a free welcome kit.

五份旅行装小样，再享订单九折优惠。

Five travel sachets plus 10% off your order.

iam8health.com/propg，代码 propg。

Iam8health.com/propg code propg.

以上陈述未经美国食品和药物管理局评估。

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

本产品不用于诊断、治疗、治愈或预防任何疾病。

This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

本节目由 Vanta 赞助支持。

Support for the show comes from Vanta.

如果你是企业主，肯定已经感受到了这种变化。

If you're a business owner, you've probably seen the shift.

风险和监管都在上升，客户在签约前，现在都要求看到安全证明。

Risk and regulation are rising, and customers now expect proof of security before they'll even sign on.

建立这种信任对促成交易至关重要，但通常又贵、又耗时，还特别复杂。

Building that trust is critical to closing deals, but it's often costly, time consuming, and complex.

Vanta说，这正是他们要解决的问题。

Vanta says that's exactly the problem they've built to solve.

Vanta通过自动化你的合规流程，把合规风险和客户信任整合到一个AI驱动的平台上。

Vanta automates your compliance process to bring compliance risk and customer trust together on one AI powered platform.

无论你是准备SOC 2审计，还是在运行完整的GRC项目，Vanta都能让你更安全，同时推动交易继续前进。

So whether you're prepping for a SOC two or running an entire GRC program, Vanta keeps you secure and keeps your deals moving.

这能让企业快速完成合规并持续保持合规，打开更高层次的增长机会，腾出宝贵的时间。

This helps companies get compliant fast and remain compliant, opening doors to next level growth opportunities and freeing up valuable time.

这意味着你再也不用翻一堆审计报告和电子表格了。

That means no more digging through audits and spreadsheets.

相反，你背后会有一个系统默默运作，帮你保持合规、降低风险，同时让业务快速且自信地扩张。

Instead, you get a system working quietly in the background, keeping you compliant, reducing risk, and helping your business scale quickly and with confidence.

包括Ramp和Rider在内的公司，使用Vanta后，审计时间减少了82%。

Companies including Ramp and Rider spend 82% less time on audits with Vanta.

这不只是加快了合规流程，更是为增长腾出了更多时间。

That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth.

你可以访问vanta.com/profg开始使用。

You can get started at vanta.com/profg.

就是vanta.com/profg。

That's vanta.com/profg.

欢迎回来。

Welcome back.

第三个问题来自Reddit上的‘I am the catalyst’。

Question number three comes from I am the catalyst on Reddit.

作为企业主，在早期阶段，招聘一直是我最重要的职责之一。

Early on as a business owner, hiring has always been one of my most important responsibilities.

随着公司发展，我们最近招的一些人都是专业岗位，我直接参与得少了。

As we've grown, more of our recent hires specialized roles where I have less direct involvement.

我现在要应对的，已经不是招人的问题，而是怎么管理那些动机和公司核心方向不一致的员工。

What I'm navigating now is less about hiring and more about managing people whose motivations differ from the company's core direction.

比如，有个员工一直热衷于开拓B2B合作，说实话，效果出奇地好。

For example, I have an employee who has been passionate about pursuing B2B partnerships, and frankly it's been wildly successful.

但我们公司本质上是做B2C的，这才是我想守护的使命。

But at our core, we're a B2C business, and that's the mission I want to protect.

斯科特，你有没有遇到过类似的情况？员工业绩很出色，但他们的想法和你想带公司走的方向不一致？

Scott, have you experienced something similar where an employee's driving results are generally impressive, but their vision pulls in a different direction than where you want to take the company?

你该怎么奖励他们的贡献，又不让你那些长期追随公司使命的团队成员觉得公司方向变了？

How do you reward the employee's contributions without signaling to your long tenured mission aligned team members that the company's direction is shifting?

这情况挺具体的，我觉得如果这个人真这么成功，可能你得重新想想怎么定位，或者调整一下他的角色。

This sounds very situational, and I would argue that if this person is that successful it probably means you may want to, I don't know, calibrate or don't know manicure the positioning.

我创办的每一家公司，最后都走上了和我最初设想不一样的路。

Every company I've started has ultimately ended up doing something different than I'd originally envisioned.

我第一家公司的主业是市场调研，后来我们干脆放弃了调研，改名叫策略咨询。

My first firm was a market research firm, then we dropped market research and called it Strategy.

我一开始做的是临时候选礼物，后来我们想得更远了，就改成了红信封。

I had started giving out nine eleven gifts for last minute gift giving, then we went more aspirational, became Red Envelope.

L2 最初是做奢侈品牌的对标，后来就直接变成通用型对标了。

Initially L2 was benchmarking luxury brands, then it just became about benchmarking.

所以我觉得，这大概就是你拿高薪的原因。

So I would be I think that's why you get paid the big bucks.

你得判断一下，这种做法会不会损害文化，是不是真的没帮助。

You've got to decide if it's bad for the culture and not helping.

我们的演讲业务做得非常扎实。

We have a really robust speaking business.

我们在房地产市场每年大概能做四五百万美元的生意。

We probably do 4 or $5,000,000 a year in property markets.

以前只有我一个人做演讲，现在已经有两三个同事接到了付费演讲的单子。

I used to be the only speaker, but now we have two or three people get paid speaking gigs.

这可不是公司未来的方向。

That's not the future of the firm.

没人会收购我们，就算有人想买，我们也别指望靠演讲业务创造大量股东价值。

No one's gonna buy us, or they're not gonna buy us, or we're not gonna create a ton of shareholder value through speaking.

但它确实能为公司的战略项目提供资金，比如多招些技术人才、推出更多播客，还有提高员工待遇。

But it's a great way to fund the company's strategic initiatives so we can hire more tech people, more launch more podcasts, etcetera, pay people better.

所以我觉得这得具体情况具体分析。

So I just think it's situational.

如果他们做的事完全偏离了公司文化，跑偏了，还赚不到钱，那当然得叫停。

If they're doing, you know, if they're doing something totally different that's bad for the culture and taking off course and not making a lot of money, yeah then shit can it.

但如果这个人特别成功，那就别浪费，赶紧变现，或者重新思考公司的发展方向。

But if this person is really wildly successful, milk it and take the cash, or maybe rethink the direction of the company.

如果这个分支是你无意中发现的，说不定比主业更有潜力、规模更大。

If that's a division that should you've kind of stumbled onto something that's maybe better and bigger than your core business.

但归根结底还是得看情况，只要没影响别人，也没出什么问题，我觉得这反而是个好问题，关键在于怎么把握分寸。

But again it's situational, and I don't it's not bothering anybody or know, just don't to me this sounds like a good problem, and it's a question of proportions.

如果这个人能带来大量高利润的额外收入，就给他空间放手干，同时也要重新评估一下：这会不会是公司意外发现的一个不错的补充方向，甚至可能需要认真考虑调整或转变公司整体战略。

If this individual is garnering a ton of incremental high margin revenue, ring fence them, let them have at it, and also reevaluate if this means if you've stumbled onto what might be a nice adjunct for the company, or maybe requires serious consideration around complementing or changing the direction of the company.

总的来说，没有更多具体信息的话，我也说不准。

In sum, I don't know without having more specifics.

而且你提到这件事，让我觉得你可能不太认同这个人的工作方式，只是因为他赚的钱太多，你不得不忍着。

And also the fact that you're bringing this up maybe thinks that gives me the impression that maybe you don't like this person's approach to work, and that they just make so much money that you have to put up with them.

我遇到过很多这样的情况。

I've had a lot of those.

当管理者就是这样，很遗憾，公司里最有能力的人，虽然不是总是，但常常也是最难搞的，因为他们知道自己有筹码。

And that's what it means to be a manager is unfortunately, usually the most talented people in the company, often not always, but oftentimes are the biggest assholes because they know they have leverage.

Anyway，抱歉啊。

Anyways, I apologize.

我没有一个确切的答案，除非我能更清楚地了解那个B2B业务带来的额外收入到底有多大。

I don't have a real and unless I knew more about the specifics, the size of the incremental revenue from that b to b business.

但如果这不是，要是真的的话。

But if it's not if it's yeah.

这个很简单。

It's an easy one.

如果它没带来多少额外收入，还占着资源，那就直接砍掉吧。

If it's not offering a ton of marginal revenue and it's a distraction, then shit can it.

但我觉得你得找几个人聊聊，把数据摆出来，把你的顾虑讲清楚，开个小范围的讨论会。

But I think you have to I think you have to meet with some people, lay out the numbers, lay out your concerns, and have a kitchen cabinet.

我不确定你有没有董事会，能帮你做出周全的决定。

I don't know if you have a board to make a thoughtful decision around this.

谢谢你的提问。

Thanks for the question.

本期就到这里。

That's all for this episode.

如果你想提问，可以发送一段语音邮件到 officehours@profgmedia.com。

If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehours@profgmedia.com.

再次提醒，邮箱是 officehours@profgmedia.com。

Again, that's officehours@profgmedia.com.

或者如果你更喜欢在Reddit上提问，就去Scott Galloway的子版块发帖，我们可能会在下一期节目中选用你的问题。

Or if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we just might feature it in an upcoming episode.

本集由詹妮弗·桑切斯和劳拉·詹纳制作。

This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Jenner.

卡米·里卡负责社交媒体运营。

Cami Rica is our social producer.

布拉德·威廉姆斯担任剪辑。

Brad Williams is our editor.

德鲁·伯罗斯是我们的技术总监。

And Drew Burrows is our technical director.

感谢收听Prop G Media出品的《Prop G Pop》。

Thank you for listening to the Prop G Pop from Prop G Media.