Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (2014–…): Season 6, Episode 3 - Automation - full transcript

Automation is a complicated blessing. It makes our life easier by creating safe and more productive environment but it also eliminates job opportunities. Rather than dealing with the issue ...

Are you wondering how healthy the food you are eating is? Check it -
Welcome, welcome, welcome
to "Last Week Tonight"!

I'm John Oliver.
Thank you so much for joining us.

Just time for a quick recap
of the week,

which brought a series of setbacks
for President Trump,

voted world's sexiest man

by "Is This Enough to Make You
Go Away?" magazine.

Trump has had quite a week,

including a summit with Kim Jong-un
where he failed to get an agreement,

despite them
standing shoulder-to-shoulder

like brothers standing outside
a Marshall's changing room

wearing back-to-school clothes
that they do not want Mom to buy.

In the U.S., there was the congressional
testimony of Trump's former lawyer

and longtime yell sponge
Michael Cohen,

who gave us a glimpse
into what Trump was like as a boss.

How many times
did Mr. Trump ask you

to threaten an individual
or entity on his behalf?

Quite a few times.

- 50 times?
- More.

- 100 times?
- More.

- 200 times?
- More.

- 500 times?
- Probably.

That is a lot.

Although I'm kind of disappointed
he didn't issue 525,600 threats.

I'd have loved to see
the cast of "Rent"

spontaneously appear and start
dancing in the background.

Over the course of the hearing,
Cohen described several possible crimes

by his former boss,
from suborning perjury

to campaign finance violations,
and yet, the Republicans

primarily used their time
to attack Cohen's credibility,

not that he went out of his way
to dispute that characterization.

Mr. Cohen, you called Donald Trump
a cheat in your opening testimony.

What would you call yourself?

A fool.

You calling--okay. Well...

Yeah, okay.

I mean, it is pretty hard to
argue with that now, isn't it?

The fact that Michael Cohen now has
absolutely no respect for Michael Cohen

is the first thing I've ever respected
about Michael Cohen.

But even that hearing didn't
last long in the headlines,

thanks to Trump's
third fiasco of the week,

which centered around Jared Kushner,

who'll be referred to as "Diminutive
Nothing Boy 1" in the Mueller report.

Jared is currently right where
you'd expect a boy his age to be:

trying to broker a peace deal

in one of the most intractable conflicts
in recent history.

Jared's been promising an
Israeli-Palestinian peace deal

for two years now and recently
promised to unveil it

"sometime after
the Israeli elections,"

which, as far as promises go,
isn't one.

Although he actually got close
to almost discussing his plan this week

in a rare on-camera interview
with Sky News Arabia.

What we have found is that
all the conflict does

is keep the people
from having the opportunity

to do commerce
and improve their lives.

Look, I don't know when that joke
is gonna stop being funny,

but it's not fucking now,
and it probably won't be the next time.

But Jared's six-nation tour for peace
was complicated by a new revelation.

"The New York Times" reports
that Trump ordered

his then-White House
chief of staff John Kelly

to give a top-secret security clearance
to Jared Kushner.

The paper says Kelly and Don McGahn,
the White House counsel at the time,

wrote memos raising concerns
about the order.

The only surprising thing there
is the claim that Kelly and McGahn

bothered to write memos
raising concerns.

The fuck is Trump supposed to do
with a memo raising concerns?

Read it?
A memo?

With what?
His eyes?

For what possible reason?
So he can know stuff?

To what end?
So he can do stuff? Why?

So he can get more memos about the stuff
he's doing? Nice try, memos.

You have to wake up pretty early in
the morning to pull one over this guy.


Now, one major issue with Jared having
access to state secrets

is, you know, it's Jared--

a guy who, even among Jareds,

stands out as the Jared
of the group.

But the other major issue with his
top-secret clearance

concerns national security.

A report in "The Washington Post"

suggests officials
from China, Israel, Mexico,

and the United Arab Emirates

saw Kushner as exploitable and at one
point hoped to manipulate him.

Well, hold on.
Manipulate him?

This guy?

He'd sniff that out in a heartbeat.

Unless, of, course,
someone got his nose!

How's Jared gonna get his nose back?

Maybe he'd trade it for communications
of a foreign government

extralegally intercepted
by U.S. military intelligence?

How about that?
How about that, Jared?

Okay, then, that's a deal.

Now who's ready to detect
the slightest whiff of manipulation?

Who's a good boy?

But I'd argue that there
are some very good reasons

not to give Jared
security clearance,

regardless of whether
he's easily tricked,

which he absolutely is,
because if he weren't,

I wouldn't have been
able to get his nose again!

Oh, what am I gonna do
with two noses?

Oh, well!

Because Jared
initially failed to disclose

meetings with Russian agents
to the FBI

and there've been concerns
over his dealings

with foreign businessmen
and officials.

That's not even getting into
my biggest concern, his complexion.

That alone should be
instantly disqualifying.

How the fuck does he look
so well rested?

This is a guy who's not just
brokering peace in the Middle East;

he's tackling the opioid crisis
and national infrastructure

as head of the Office
of American Innovation,

while constantly traveling
halfway around the world

and doing it all while navigating
the psychosexual Stalingrad

that is marriage
to Donald Trump's daughter.

Where are the bags under his eyes?

How is his skin so smooth?

It is deeply worrisome
how unworried he looks.

The only way you maintain that glow
with that to-do list

is by not really understanding
anything on it.

I mean, just look at this.

He's radiant
in every single photograph.

He has resting rested face.

Do you want to know
what the guy who helped broker

the 1993 Oslo peace accords
looked like?

It's a rhetorical question,
because you absolutely don't.

This is former secretary of state
Warren Christopher.

Those are the jowls of a
deeply stressed-out individual,

stress that's entirely appropriate

given the gravity
and complexity of his workload.

Jared, on the other hand,

looks like a 17th-century portrait
of a Dutch teenager.

Look, say what you will
about Henry Kissinger

and the Cambodian civilians whose
villages he bombed certainly can't--

but the man looks
reassuringly terrible.

And yet he's the exact same age
as Jared in that photo.

One more reason this story could
be trouble for the Trump administration:

they've repeatedly denied on the record
that Jared got special treatment.

When Trump was asked whether he pushed
Jared's clearance through, he said,

"I wouldn't do it. I was never involved
with the security."

And last month, this was how
Ivanka responded to questions.

Many people question whether you
were given special treatment

by the president, over other...

- Absolutely not.
- Officials.

Can you speak to that?

There were anonymous leaks
about there being issues.

But the president had no involvement

pertaining to my clearance
or my husband's clearance.

- What were the problems early on?
- There weren't any.

Oh, please. I honestly don't know
what's sadder there.

Either Ivanka's knowingly lying
about her dad

forcing her and Jared's
security clearance through

or she genuinely thinks
they got it on merit on their own.

And if it is the latter, Ivanka,

there are some things
you should know.

You became executive vice president
of the Trump Organization at 24

because you're
Donald Trump's daughter,

not because you were
a 24-year-old business prodigy.

You got a book deal because
you're Trump's daughter,

not because you're a brilliant
author and wordsmith.

And you only hosted
the Miss Teen USA pageant

because your dad owned the contest,

not because of your
sparkling on-camera presence.

And you know how Santa Claus

used to visit on Christmas morning
to give you presents?

Well, that wasn't the real Santa.
It was Michael Cohen.

And trust me, he won't be coming
down your chimney anymore.

And now this.

And now,
no one does local news beat poetry

quite like NBC 4 Washington's
Pat Collins.

Five burglaries here in six days.

Two on this street.

Two on that street.

One on a street
down around the corner.

Glass doors broken.
Valuables taken.

Credit cards, jewelry, cash.

When Verizon shipped some cell phones
to some stores in our area,

they shipped the phones,
but the phones never arrived.

Cops want this guy really bad.

You see, he's been using CVS stores
as his own personal ATM.

Downed power lines.

Downed trees.

No way out of here.



Motorcycle. Motorcycle.

She had a lot of money.

She had a passport.

And she had...

one of these.

Some of the phones
had been activated.

Some of the phones were in use.

Something fishy here.

They seemed like they knew
what they were doing

until they left...

And had that Kodak moment.

Moving on.

Our main story tonight
concerns jobs.

You know, the thing
every kid gets asked about.

I want to be--

Hey, I never think--
thought of that.

- I want to be a lawyer.
- Lawyer.

- Pilot.
- A pilot... And a dad.

A pilot racer dad.

I want to be an artist that
goes around painting walls.

- I want to be a doctor.
- Doctor.

- A mermaid.
- A mermaid doctor.

Ooh, a mermaid doctor?

I mean, sure, everyone wants
to be a mermaid doctor,

until, that is, you have to do your
first mermaid colonoscopy.

Two things you should know
about a mermaid's asshole, kid:

one, no matter where you're
picturing it, that's not where it is.

And two, no one comes out
the same person they went in.

A part of you dies in there, and you'll
spend your life trying to get it back.

Anyway, jobs were a major theme

in Donald Trump's
presidential campaign,

along with--of course--
walls, taco bowls,

allegations of sexual assault,
and admissions of sexual assault.

But Trump's primary focus
as candidate and president

has been on jobs--
specifically, who was stealing them.

Whether it's China or Japan
or Mexico, they're all taking our jobs.

Now Vietnam. That's the new one.
They are taking our jobs.

The jobs are being taken by India.

Our jobs were stolen away

and shipped far away
to other countries,

some of which
you've never even heard of.

Yes, our jobs are being stolen

by countries
you've never even heard of.

But remember
this is coming from the man

who reportedly
referred to Nepal and Bhutan

as "nipple" and "button."

So for Trump, "countries
you've never heard of"

could just mean
bulgy areola, barb's anus,

boring, urethra, honda rice,

ankle, fat hamster, fence,

Jeremy, bikini fatso, le sofa,

balls-in-ya and hater-vagina,

gay water, butt swallow,

licking time, Pocahonta,
lorks and blorsh,

hot girl with jizz in her hair,
"my wife," my taco, grenade,

the one that sounds like a butt,
bad Asia, Slim Shady,

queso bowl, fuck that,

daddy fat hamster, lice,

lesbian, Russia, Macarena,

vag lands, poo land,

Pamela, marinara, seagull,

pillow, Russia, Jared's friends,

Santa kids and Norbit,

more titties, guitar,
pair of gays, samosas, toga,

to-go, feeling peens,

the medium gross lettuce,
you're a gay, Zumba, Xanadu,

magnolia, and hotel for dogs,

no, wait, the one that's
not for dogs, hotel that one.

Basically, Trump's philosophy is,

"The world: never heard of it,
but it's stealing your jobs."

And look, some manufacturing
jobs are gone

because they went overseas,
but Trump is completely ignoring

another major factor behind job losses:

Its impact has been massive.

You wouldn't know it
from how Trump talks,

but our manufacturing sector produces
twice as much as it did in 1984,

but we produce it
with 1/3 fewer workers.

The point is, many of
those jobs aren't being stolen.

They are disappearing
because machines are now doing them.

And thanks to advances
in AI and robotics,

there are concerns that
this sort of job loss could accelerate.

In fact, a few years back,
some people got very concerned

when an Oxford University study
came out with a startling number.

An Oxford University study
says that

up to half of all jobs in the U.S.
are at risk to automation.

A new study
which suggests many of us

may lose our jobs because of robots.

A robot is probably
going to take your job

according to
a new Oxford University study.

That's close to 50% of the workforce
being completely eliminated,

as in no more jobs for them.

50% of all our jobs will be gone.

That is terrifying...
for you.

I mean, luckily, a robot could never
be a late-night host.

It'd make basic mistakes, like, say,
devoting 90 seconds of air time

to a list of dumb names Trump might have
for other countries.

How weird would that be?

It's called pacing, robots. Look it up.
You don't do a massive list of names

before you've introduced
the thesis of your piece.

Anyway, the thesis of this piece

is that while people often talk about
automation in apocalyptic terms,

the truth is, everything about it
is more complicated than you think,

including that "half your jobs
will be gone" Oxford study.

So let's talk about automation.
And let's begin with the fact that,

while it's often presented
as a scary new problem,

it's neither entirely scary
nor entirely new.

From the industrial revolution
through the rise of mass production,

automation has
transformed our society

in ways people have marveled at,

sometimes in
less-than-ideal language.

Power and the highly important
standardization of parts

and mass production
with its assembly lines

have created more
mechanical slaves for man.

Mechanical slaves in
the machine tool industry--

created by man
to create more mechanical slaves.

The average man
in the United States today

is said to have at his beck and call
20 mechanical slaves.

"Slaves, slaves, slaves!
Oh, how I have missed them!

"Yes, mechanical slaves:

"if you close your eyes,
you can forget that they're mechanical."

And, look, there is no doubt:
mechanical slaves-- or "machines"

as a normal person
might describe them--

have had hugely beneficial effects.

They've made goods cheaper
and jobs easier and sometimes safer.

Take this man.
He runs a logging company,

and he's developing machines
to fell trees,

which would put his own son
out of a job.

But he's doing it for
a pretty compelling reason.

If you have a man on a chainsaw
falling trees,

they're eventually
going to get hurt.

Logging has the highest death rate
of any American occupation.

For its size, logging kills people
at a higher rate than the military.

I've come to the belief
that the only way

I can ensure the safety of my people
is not have 'em there.

The best way not to kill
a hand cutter is not have one.

He's right. The best way not to kill
a hand cutter is not to have one,

which presumably means the best way
to kill a hand cutter is to have one.

So if you are trying
to murder a lumberjack,

it's probably best
just to hire him and wait.

Also--also don't do it.
D-don't do it.

But if you really want to, that'd be how
to go about it. But you shouldn't.

You shouldn't,
although I've just given you

a perfect blueprint
for how to get away with it.

But again, I want to make
this absolutely clear:

nobody out there
should murder a lumberjack.

You should just wait for them to die
in an accident. It's the perfect crime.

But the truth is,
from employers' point of view,

the big selling point for automation

is that it increases productivity
and it maximizes profits.

And for displaced workers,

that has caused immense pain throughout
history, and not just in factories.

In the '90s, as voice recognition
technology improved,

phone company operators
were rightly worried for their jobs.

My first thought was, "Uh-oh.

"Here comes trouble.

This is gonna get my job
for sure."

I thought that
this is gonna be a robot.

They won't need as many operators.
I'll lose my job.

I talked to some friends of mine
from the Shreveport office,

and the rumors were running
rampant over there.

You know, like,
"They're testing this machine.

"It's gonna do away
with our job, they're--

"we heard they're shutting down
y'all's office and going to machines."

First of all-- and I know this
isn't the point here, but--

what the fuck is going on
in Shreveport?

Lisa Lee here is your friend,
and you're all,

"Hey, Lisa, you're gonna get fired"?
Fuck you, Shreveport!

Girl, you deserve friends
who lift you up, not tear you down.

Remember how far you've come.

You don't need Shreveport.
Shreveport needs you.

Now you pick yourself up,
and you show the world

what Lisa Lee is really made of.
You go, girl!

You go!

But when you see this story
through the eyes of worried employees,

you can understand
the deep-seated human urge

that many of us have
to see robots come to harm,

whether we're joyously
retweeting this photo,

captioned, "Our D.C. office
building got a security robot.

It drowned itself."

Or just attacking any robot
foolish enough to trust us.

The idea was to see
how people would interact

with a talking solar-powered robot
as it hitched across America

on its own tracked by a GPS.

On Saturday, the robot was found
in Philadelphia,

the city of brotherly love,
resting in pieces.

Late today,
video surfaced of the attack,

but the robot's creators
are not out for revenge.

I'm sure it could have
happened anywhere.

We don't think it has anything
to do with Philadelphia.

You're wrong about that.

It has absolutely everything
to do with Philadelphia.

This is a city with a chronic
police horse punching problem.

Sending a hitchhiking robot
into Philadelphia

is not unlike sending a beautiful bell
symbolizing freedom into Philadelphia.

There is no way it's gonna
remain in one piece,

and there's a non-zero chance
that someone is gonna try and fuck it.

So, so...

At this point, you may be thinking,
"Well, whatever its advantages,

automation throws a lot of
people out of work, right?"

Well, yes, but again,
it is complicated,

and the picture
often gets distorted.

Remember that report from earlier?

The one that led to claims that
half of our jobs were going away?

There are real concerns
about its methodology,

and other studies have come up with
much lower numbers.

But more importantly, it didn't claim
half of jobs would be gone.

It suggested some jobs were in the
high-risk category for being automated,

and that's
a very different thing,

because a job automated
is not necessarily a job lost.

Frequently, machines don't replace jobs
so much as tasks.

A good example of this
concerns ATMs.

It is hard to imagine a time
now that they weren't around,

but when they became common
in the 1980s,

bank tellers were afraid
of them stealing their jobs.

Of course, customers were
sometimes afraid of them

for very different reasons.

- Does it hurt?
- Yeah, it hurts.

Ignoring the adage
"never bite the hand that feeds you,"

the Bank of America
versateller did just that,

snapped onto Paul's hand while he was
trying to transact business with it.

I thought if I reach in there,
I can pull an envelope out

and go ahead and make the deposit
and go on to work.

I'm trying to get to work, yeah.

That man died.

Not of that. Not of that.
That's ridiculous.

He died two years later,
when he got stuck inside a claw machine.

That's a fact.
What is that fact based on?

Nothing other than my total
conviction that it's true.

But while ATMs did
eat the occasional customer,

fears of job losses turned out
to be completely overblown,

because bank teller employment
actually increased

over the next 30 years.

What happened was, ATMs took over
the job of dispensing cash

and tellers were then freed up
to do sales or other work.

Their jobs didn't go;
they changed.

And when automation does lead
to job loss in certain sectors,

historically, it's also
actually created jobs,

as this economist from MIT explains.

Let's do the following thought exercise.
It's the year 1900,

and 40% of all employment
is in agriculture, right?

And so some twerpy economist from MIT
teleports back in time and says,

"100 years from now,

"only 2% of people will be
working in agriculture.

What do you think the other
38% of people are gonna do?"

- I wouldn't know.
- You wouldn't say,

"Search engine optimization."
You know,

"health and wellness,
software and mobile devices."

Most of what we do barely existed.

That "twerpy economist" is right.

50 years from now,
people will be doing jobs

that we can't imagine right now,
like cryptobaker

or snail rehydrator

or investment harpist.
I don't know.

The point is,
you can't imagine them.

So we get rid of some jobs
but we get new ones.

So that's even Stephen, right?
Not necessarily,

because the new jobs
automation creates

won't necessarily pay the same
as the ones it takes away,

and it might not be easy for displaced
workers to transition into them.

Right now, our economy is creating
lots of jobs in the tech sector.

At the same time,
we have 3 1/2 million truckers

possibly facing unemployment
due to driverless technology.

Now, in an ideal world, those truckers
could seamlessly move

into high-tech jobs.

But as this man explains,
it's just not that easy.

If the average age is 55,

these guys are going to be
computer programmers

when they didn't finish high school?
I doubt it.

Of course. I mean, but maybe
some 55-year-old truck drivers

will become web designers,
but if you think all of them will,

remember that time
your father accidentally

typed his Google search into Facebook
and then tried to cover it up

by putting Wite-Out on the computer.

So the big question here is,

how do you harness
what is good about automation

while minimizing the damage
to those hurt by it?

The best thing would be

if America were in the hands
of someone nimble and forward-thinking.

And unfortunately, that
brings us back to this guy.

And he has not demonstrated
much of a grasp on this issue.

Look at what happened with a company
called Carrier. After the election,

Trump, with the aid
of a massive tax break,

convinced the CEO of Carrier's
parent company, Greg Hayes,

not to move a factory to Mexico.

He made a big deal
out of saving those jobs,

and he was excited
about what was coming next.

They're gonna spend so much money
on renovating this plant.

And I said, "Greg, say that number."
He said "$16 million."

The minimum number is 16. It's gonna be,
in my opinion, a lot more than that.

He said, "Well, I'd rather say
the lower number."

I'd rather have them say the higher
number. So I won't say it.

It's just a difference in philosophy.
Right? Both are okay.

Difference in philosophy.
But they'll spend more than 16.

They'll spend a lot of money
on the plant.

"It's a difference
in philosophy, you see?

"I wanna lie; he doesn't wanna lie.

"Both are okay.
I'm still gonna lie to you;

"I'll just do it vaguely, for Greg.
This lie's for you, Greg.

"Greg's gonna spend way more
than $16 million on the plant."

Here's the thing
about that $16 million.

It wasn't good news
for the workers,

as Greg Hayes made clear
just a few days later.

We'll make
a $16 million investment

in that factory in Indianapolis
to automate, to drive the costs down

so we can continue
to be competitive.

What that ultimately means
is there will be fewer jobs.

Oh, great work,
Mr. President.

So Carrier workers
are still going to lose their jobs.

It's just the government now helped,
for some reason,

pay for the robots
that will replace them.

That is the classic Trump deal-making

that you can read all about
in his best-selling book

"The Art of Saying Whatever
and Letting Someone Else,

"Hey, Maybe Even a Robot,
Deal With the Consequences.

"Is That a Good Title? Why Not?
Moot Point, 'Cause It's 11:45 a.m.,

Which is Basically Noon,
So That's Lunch."

And the Trump administration's
response to automation

hasn't gotten much better,
because for someone who claims

that he cares so much
about the American worker,

he's done almost nothing to help
people displaced by automation,

and there is plenty
that he could be doing.

One set of proposals includes
funding retraining;

ideally, retraining
that is directly tailored

to available jobs in your area.

That seems like a sensible idea,
as does trying to help older workers

who may end up having to take a new job
with a lower salary

through things like wage insurance
or an expanded earned income tax credit.

All of that will cost money
and quite a lot of it,

so Trump will probably revert
to his preferred solution,

blaming China, Vietnam,
and other countries

you've probably never even heard of.

In the meantime, we need to start
preparing younger workers

for the job market
they're about to enter,

because the pace of technological change
is now so rapid,

some experts suggest that
we might need to rethink

our basic conception of a career.

The majority of people will end up
having an episodic career.

It's great to ask kids, for instance,

what do you want to be
when you grow up?

But one thing that might
be added to that question is,

what five things do you want to be
when you grow up?

She's right about that,

and that means that the girl from before
who said "mermaid doctor"

may need to come up
with some backup plans,

partly because that job may be partially
automated in the future,

and partly because, honestly,
rising ocean temperatures

are gonna kill all the mermaids.
It's just a fact.

They're going to be boiled alive.

And look, I've thrown a lot of
complication at you tonight,

but the one thing we know for sure
is automation is not going to stop,

and some people
are going to lose their jobs.

So we should help those that do
and be preparing the next generation

for the possibility that they may need
to be flexible in their career plans.

What do you want to be
when you grow up?

I want to be an inventor.

Rock star ballerina.

- I want to be a musician.
- A nurse.

A person who
takes people on safari.

- Stenographer.
- A fashion designer.

So are you worried
about robots taking over

- ...certain jobs?
- No.

Okay, you might need
to be aware of that long-term.

Tell you what. You name some jobs,
and I'll tell you whether

I think a robot
could do it or not, okay?

- Policeman.
- A robot could do that.

That's literally the plot
of "Robocop."

Serve food, like at a diner.

Robots could definitely do that,
Zoe, sorry.

- Can a robot get wet?
- Yeah, a robot can get wet.

That's not a job,
but, yes, a robot can get wet.

- Fireman.
- Robot with a hose.

- Right?
- Yeah.

- A drummer.
- A robot could definitely do the drums.

They'd be probably really bad
at basketball.

Robots are actually
incredible at basketball.

- What? Really?
- Yeah. Here. Look at this.

I'm gonna Google
"robot drummer" right now.

- Okay?
- Okay.

I just put "robot d,"
and it autocorrected.

- I am definitely faster than--
- You're definitely faster than a robot?

- Mm-hmm.
- Here's the thing.

You're definitely not.

Let me show you this.

Laura, do you think a robot
could do my job in the future?

What is your job anyway?

Uh, we-- so we take a big story,

and we try and inject it
with as much nuance as we can.

So we really try and get a deep dive
into complicated issues,

and then I present our work,
you know, to the audience

at the end of the week.

- Do you think a robot could do that?
- Yup.

- This is really hard.
- Well, what can I do?

What can you do?
Very good question.

A series of nonroutine tasks
that require social intelligence,

complex critical thinking,
and creative problem-solving, okay?

- Okay.
- Can you repeat that back to me?

I want to do
a series of nonroutine tasks...

I want to do
a series of nonroutine tasks...

- Tah-sks.
- Tah-sks.

You're doing
a British accent there, Zoe.

- That requires social intelligence...
- That requires social intelligence...

- Complex critical thinking...
- What?

- Complex critical thinking.
- And creative problem-solving.

- And creative problem-solving.
- And creative problem-solving.

That's what you got to do.

- Okay.
- Yeah?

Okay, is that a deal?

We did it.

- I, like, don't know what it means.
- Okay.

That's our show.
Thank you for watching.

See you next week.
Good night!