That's it. Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us. Welcome to New America. My name is Cecilia Munoz. I'm the Vice President for Public Interest Technology and Local Initiatives here. And we could not be more excited to have all of you here and to be launching the conversation that we're about to have. So thank you so much for coming and being part of this. I am personally so excited about the report that we're about to release about the team that did the hard work to put it together and about the contribution that we hope it makes to the conversation about work and workers and the future of work in the US. At New America, we're particularly focused on what we think of as renewing the promise of America, recognizing that the ideas, the innovations, the inputs that are going to move us forward as a country may not emanate, we say, with all humility, from think tank tables in places like Washington. We think that some of the best ideas that will transform us as a country emanate from the country itself. We think there are good people all over the country every day doing good work that can turn us around. But very often, that work isn't visible. It's not lifted up enough. It doesn't circulate. It doesn't get to scale. So in that spirit, we have been doing locally focused work that looks at the future of work, that looks at the future for workers. And I'm proud to say that at the core of this work has been engagement with workers themselves. They are really the focus of a conversation that is happening at a national level about the future of work. But too often, their voices aren't present in the conversation. Their voices, their perspectives matter a lot. They should be at the core of shaping policy. And you'll be hearing more about how they should shape it and why and what their perspectives contribute when we talk about this report today. So we are greatly thankful to Google for supporting this work and making it possible to lift up the voices of workers and bring them into this debate. And here from Google.org is our friend Andrew Dunkelman, who is going to give a welcome. Andrew. Thank you so much, Cecilia. And I didn't get my act together to print, so I'm just going to do this number off my Google Pixel. My name is Andrew Dunkelman. And I lead the Education and Economic Opportunity team at Google.org, which is Google's philanthropy. And I want to thank the team from New America for both delivering these insights today but also inviting me to speak. And would love to thank everyone in the room for taking a time out of what are surely busy schedules and a busy news cycle to join us for a little while to reflect on these questions. About three years ago, my team at Google.org launched a new initiative focused on the future of work. The term had gone viral, as many of you remember. And it means different things to lots of different people, but it seemed to us that they were all asking a common question, which would work, which plays such an important role in our lives, our economic and social lives, continue to play the same role in the future. And if not, what would that mean for our economies and society? We felt like there were a lot more questions than answers at the time, and so our initiative set out to fund research and solutions. We made a $50 million philanthropic commitment to fund new approaches to skill building, modernizing the social safety net, improving job quality, and altogether better understanding all these questions about the meaning and actuality of the future of work. Now over those three years, the questions have narrowed, and I think lots more solutions have emerged as hopefully you've all seen. We have a much better sense of how tasks are changing. We know more about what it takes to improve skills for adult workers, and we are starting to see where there are missing links in policy and practice. Yet time and again, what I observed from our research partnerships is that while very good data was being produced, it seemed that the lived experiences of working people tended to get pushed to the back burner. Many of those reports would, I found, relegate working people to numbers in a table rather than agents in their careers. And we know that research based solutions if divorced from the realities of people who would put them into practice simply stay good ideas and not much else. You know, I think all of us feel this in our own lives and work. Our decisions about work come down to a lot more than earnings and economics. Certainly they do in part, but also they come down to our happiness, our identity, the dignity we connect to work, and the people we work around. Pursuing new skills and degrees is a loaded and weighty decision that comes with all sorts of uncertainties and constraints of real life that surround it. And so we were excited to partner with the New America team to start to shed light on some of this complexity and to bring the perspective of workers off the sidelines into the center of the conversation where it belongs. My hope is that today's report is one significant advancement toward more thoughtful programs, more considered policy and predictions, and ultimately a more human centered future of work. So with that, let me turn it to Molly Kinder and Amanda Lenhart to start to share some findings. Welcome everybody. My name is Molly Kinder. I am a non-resident senior fellow here at New America with our work workers and technology program and a David Rubenstein fellow at the Brookings Institution. And I'm here along with my co-author Amanda Lenhart who's the deputy director of New America's Better Life Lab to share with you a little bit of what we found in our study. But before we do that, I wanted to first thank Andrew. Andrew and his colleague Michelle Juwanda have been amazing partners for this work. They really believe in the dignity of workers and bringing worker voice into this conversation. So we're very grateful for the support. And while Amanda and I are up here, there are of course many people who made this work possible. Some of them are in this room and we wanted to acknowledge Rosalind Miller in particular was a core member of our interview team. She brought passion and wisdom and amazing Spanish language ability that allowed us to interview a lot of native Spanish speakers. Emily Tavalyris was a consultant we brought in who was hugely instrumental in the design and conception of this work. Some of our colleagues who were not in the room but were very involved were Amber McDonald and Rachel Alexander in our California office. Dana Juw who's been a key ally of this work. Molly Martin in Indianapolis and we're extra grateful to our entire communications team who really believed in this project and helped bring it to life. We're also really grateful for some of our partners in organizations that represent workers who helped introduce us to some of the workers you're gonna see today and that are in the reports. UFCW was an amazing partner, SCIU, the Fight for 15 campaign and LISC as well. And most importantly, we're grateful to all the workers who were involved in this project. As Andrew and Cecilia mentioned, really the motivation of this work is that in future of work conversations, decisions in the workplace, policy debates, we feel it is absolutely essential that the workers who are gonna be impacted by changes have a seat at the table, a voice in the discussion and agency in how these decisions play out. So the heart of our research was turning the tables on some of the current future of work framing and going to the workers who were at the front lines of change. The approach that our team took was that we leveraged the insights from an approach called human-centered design, which starts with interviewing the people who are most impacted by policies. So for that, we went to four regions across the country. We went to the Bay Area, Indianapolis, Indiana, Buffalo, New York, and locally here in the DC region. And we interviewed 40 workers one-on-one for an hour piece in very open-ended interviews where we learned a lot about people's lives, the context of their lives, their feelings about work, how work is changing, what role technology plays and what their views are in the future. We purposely picked a group of workers that represent jobs that millions of Americans hold. They're actually some of the most common jobs across the country. And the workers we talk to hold jobs that are most likely to see some of the changes that you hear about with automation, artificial intelligence and automation. So we talked to workers in fast food chains, grocery workers, cashiers, retail workers. We also spoke to many women in administrative and clerical roles like bookkeepers, administrative assistants, legal assistants. And we learned a lot from their stories. Our report is full of insights directly from these workers, their views about the present and the future. And Amanda and I wanted to just share a few of our key findings today. The first very important point is the present of work today is intricately linked to the future of work. This might seem obvious, but often we talk about the future in technology in a vacuum as if there aren't already challenges in the workplace today. The data suggests that some of the work that is most disproportionately at risk of change is some work in low wage work where a lot of the workers we talk to, given the low pay that they receive, struggle to make ends meet. Economic precarity is a common challenge. We heard a lot from workers about their struggle to get enough hours from their employer to pay their bills and importantly to qualify for benefits that they really want for themselves and for their family. This economic precarity, especially from low wage work is directly connected to workers ability to make the sort of investments and decisions that allow them to weather changes and prepare for the future. Whether that is to weather a job disruption, to take on additional training or to even prepare to connect to better work. So one of our first and most important points is that job quality today, hours, compensation, benefits, stability is such an important part of the conversation on the future. The second point is that what we heard overwhelmingly from workers across the board was this desire for stability. Workers really want stability in their lives and a key part of that is benefits. Our system in the US where so much of our benefits and our safety net comes from our employment makes the potential for job changes even more destabilizing and disruptive to people. So this is again one of our findings is that our safety net and our benefit system makes the prospects of job change even more destabilizing. The next point is that what we heard from workers and then you'll hear more today in our next panel is that this is not just a futuristic conversation. Technology is already here today, part and parcel of people's jobs. And a lot of times we've heard that those technological changes really have picked up in the last few years. So we heard about things like Uber Eats, mobile ordering, the shift to online shopping, walking into a fast food chain and there being self ordering kiosks, self checkout and grocery stores in retail. We heard a lot from administrative and clerical workers more about software changes that are part of their day to day life. Sometimes we heard positive things that often technology can be something that's deployed that helps workers do their job better, makes their lives easier. More often than not we heard a lot of concerns about the ways in which this workplace technology is in the workers view displacing hours, jobs, displacing people like them and contributing to the struggle that already exists to secure enough hours for benefits. And my last point before I turn to Amanda is that we often heard when we asked about the future and how workers imagine their workplace in 20 years, we heard a lot of pessimism about the future for humans in the workplace, particularly from workers who are in retail, grocery and fast food. There was a sense that technology is coming, that their employers are going to look to technology to cut costs in order to maximize profits for shareholders without concern for workers like them. So there was a lot of deep concern that technology was part and parcel of a broader view of workplaces that were not prioritizing the individual. Administrative and clerical workers were more measured in their views of the future. They imagined more technology, but not always with such a large potential loss of jobs. And interestingly, a lot of people had a lot to say about ways human labor is still so essential to work, that what humans bring to the job, what they bring to customer service, for instance, to empathy, to communication. A lot of everyone felt that this was very valuable and they would like to see employers respect and appreciate and value this. And in fact, there was a lot of aspects of jobs that people don't feel could be automated. Unfortunately, a lot of workers felt that these were changes happening to them. They lacked any say or voice or agency in the decisions that were being made that so personally impacts them. Some of the workers we talked to, including some you'll hear from today, had union membership. Most of the workers we talked to did not. And it was very clear to Amanda and I to our study team that coming up with better and more powerful ways to give workers more voice, more agency and decisions, and more of a say in their future is essential not only on decisions around technology, but around the other things that workers want even more today, which is again, fair compensation, benefits, stability and respect. And with that, I'll turn to Amanda. Thanks Molly. And so, another main finding from our work is sort of picks up on this idea of job quality, which Molly talked about earlier and sort of takes that and suggests that these jobs going forward need to be good. So one of the things we heard was that a number of workers, particularly administrative and clerical workers, actually were relatively satisfied with their jobs. They had a lot of stability. They had the benefits that they wanted. And they felt that this was, they were quite happy even though the salaries that they had were a little bit low. So with the loss of some of these jobs as predicted by some of the data that we've seen in other research, there's a potential loss of a number of jobs that are held predominantly by women and people of color that allow people to have middle class lives and middle class jobs. A number of the union workers we also talked to were people who told us that they had jobs that felt like they were stable and that they could educate their children, that they had lives, they were able to own homes, that these were jobs that paid them well and provided them with a sense of respect. They also told us that many of the younger workers coming into similar jobs in the same places, in the same kind of employers were no longer able to have those same kinds of jobs, those same kind of benefits, a different pay scale, much more difficult to get benefits in hours. And so these kinds of middle class jobs that people have today are continuing to disappear. Another important aspect I think that highlights the need for future jobs to be good jobs is we heard from a number of workers who had left pink collar jobs. We call them pink collar jobs but I'm talking about jobs like care jobs, child care jobs, and had moved into administrative positions. And they talked about how that while they had derived a lot of satisfaction from being a CNA or a childcare worker, that those jobs had very low pay, precarious hours, physically and emotionally draining and on offered a measure of risk and danger to their physical selves. And so they moved into these white collar office jobs as a way to provide themselves with more stability. And so I think given that we know pink collar care jobs are often jobs held up as relatively automation proof but we see a whole number of people who are fleeing those jobs into jobs that feel more stable. We need to work more in the future to make those kinds of care jobs, better jobs for everyone by improving their pay, adding adequate benefits and more stability. Another important finding from the work was that many workers struggle to get education and training. So even if they had identified a desire to change their work and to have a different kind of job, there were a variety of hurdles that they faced. In particular, we heard from workers who had faced financial and personal shocks to their lives, job loss, the birth of a child who had financial aid or academic issues. And also many workers who started undertaking education but didn't really know why they were doing it. They didn't know where they were headed or why they were investing this time and energy into this type of credential. And so many of these workers ended up leaving this sort of educational trajectory that they were on but found themselves burdened with debt and no credential or degree with which they could use to get a job to help pay that debt off. Others also told us about their baseline struggle to just afford to pay for this training or to take the time away from work to focus on getting a new skill or credential. They couldn't lose that income. So what does work for workers? What did they tell us? They told us they wanted short-term, affordable training that acknowledges the demands of workers' busy lives and that gives them an actionable credential. They wanted on-the-job training or apprenticeships though often could see that these opportunities were disappearing. Almost no workers took advantage of online training that was offered, often because they did not know why they would want to do it. And those who did engage in online training often in pursuit of a degree found that they struggled with the isolation, the lack of structure, and time management. And many of them in fact were unable to complete their degree. Many other workers told us that career transitions were just simply difficult. And this goes back to this idea of the broader sort of wrapper around workers' lives. Workers are busy, they have families, they have a lot of commitments. And trying to find the time to put skilling into these busy lives was extremely difficult. Many of our younger interviewees saw the promise of education across the trajectory of their lives, but middle-aged and older workers were in the thick of things and didn't necessarily see the promise of reskilling and often thought that skilling opportunities that were offered to them were more for the benefit of their employer than for them. Right now what we see is that the workforce development system is not perfectly attuned to the needs of most of the workers who may need to reskill in the near future. And so we need to have more innovation in the future of work and in the workforce development space that provides more innovative ideas, things like lifelong learning accounts or other fresh thinking that will help us create new programs that will better target the needs and wants of workers. Another important finding that we had was that women in particular faced special barriers. As other research has highlighted and was very clear from many of the women in our research, women go home from a full day of work to another second shift of domestic work, childcare and elder care. This dual burden had important impacts on women's lives and on their work lives. It meant that they didn't have the time and couldn't find the time to go and get new training or new skills in education, let alone find ways to pay for the work that they were doing for free to care for children and elders in ways that actually worked with the timing for the courses or classes or skilling that they wanted to engage in. And on top of that, these structural barriers often meant that women had a distaste for and in fact often an outright refusal for management jobs and promotions. We heard from a number of women who said that the additional demands on my time and the additional uncertainty and lack of control over my time meant that I did not want to take on these other jobs and the additional stress burden on top of the sort of dual work that I already do. So we really must find ways to equalize pay, provide better access to childcare and elder care and to create policies that like paid family leave that especially target men to help equalize the work in the home and to remove some of these barriers for women as they try to move into or as we try to help them move into jobs that are more automation proof in management. And finally, really in order to make effective change we need to focus on the context around workers. We need to focus on the context around jobs and the challenges and hardships that workers face in their lives. And most importantly, we need to consult with the workers themselves. They know what they see. We need to understand what they know, what they see and what their experiences are like and work with them to design policies and programs that address these issues and create an equitable future of work. With that, I would say please send any questions to Molly or I via Twitter or email if you have questions about the work or the research. But I'd like to transition now to our first panel. And our first panel is hopefully an embodiment of the central principles of this work to elevate the voice of workers that have long been absent from the future of work discussion. So I'd like to invite our panelists to join us here on stage, Brian Jeter, Cordelia Cooper and Amber Stevens. Thank you. Well, I am delighted for this next segment of our program. We have on stage three workers who were involved in our research. They were some of the most memorable voices from our journey this summer who are gonna share with us a little bit of their own experience and their perspectives. So I'm gonna start with Cordelia. Cordelia, you have an amazing history as a cashier. 41 years of experience. Can you tell us a little bit about your work, how you've seen a change over the years and what role being a cashier has played in your life? I've been a cashier for 41 years and I started out working for a family-owned company and everything was family. It was about family. We all worked together. Even the president of the company would come to us and we were just all family. Then when the company sold and sold out to a bigger company, that's exactly what happened. Just a company. We're just workers. We're no longer family. You work for us. There it is. And what does that look like now? So tell us what feels different today than it did in some of the earlier days when you felt it was more family-oriented? When it was more family-oriented, we would do, let's say when the president would come to the store, everyone would be excited. We would prepare for his coming. And now it's just the president's coming. Oh, okay. He's coming. He doesn't, they don't particularly, they just walk through. They don't recognize you as a worker and say thank you or any of that. They just go through, talk with the managers and okay, goodbye. And when you think about a cashier starting out today, so different from when you started 41 years ago, how does the job potentially feel different? What are the opportunities in front of a cashier today?  If they're a little bit older, they have the potential to stay there and work, but they get no hours and not compensated for their work. So they often have to work two or three jobs. And so they often don't stay. And when you think about, you have two children who have grown and I believe they went to school, they've got good careers. So you've had a great life and you've succeeded. Do you feel that there are opportunities now for younger people coming up to achieve the success and the middle class opportunities you've had? It would be very tough right now in this field because of technology, but it could happen. It could happen, great. Thanks greatly. So Amber, can you tell us a little bit about your work and what it's meant to you? Okay, so I'm Amber, I'm Amber Stevens. I work in shoppers for warehouse. I've been there for about 11 years and it has meant the world to me. Reason being I started right out of high school and I planned on not being there too long, just a couple of weeks and then we go over to college. It didn't work out that way because sometimes things just don't work out the way that we planned them. So I got pregnant, I had a baby, but the job allowed me to sustain my own place, a car after being there for some time. I needed healthcare to make sure that myself and my baby was okay. So it afforded me that as well. So in the beginning, the job was what I needed and where I needed to be at. And when you think about your work, what matters most to you? What things do you most want from your job? So from my job, I look for the hours. The hours affords me to pay, to be able to pay the bills. A little stability in these type of jobs is not often you work in the morning or you work at night. You work all day depending upon when they put you on a schedule. So stability is definitely a good thing because as the child grows, she's in school and it's always good to kind of keep her on a pattern. And it's hard to do that when you don't know, hey, Monday I have to work late, so who's gonna get her from school and have to do homework, make sure that she's fed and dinners on time, get the bed on time. So it's a bit of a jam when you don't have that stability. And when you're with your schedule, how much control and visibility do you have? None, really. You can request a time that you would like to be old for but it's just what it is, a request. It's no guarantee. And I remember in some of our earlier conversations you reflected a little bit about the respect some of these issues. Can you tell us a little bit about other than sort of compensation and hours and schedule? What else, what do you seek in the workplace? I seek the respect and the appreciation. Speaking on what Ms. Cordelia said, it's not very often that the managers will come by and say thank you or we appreciate you. And then we get these pity parties that they call the appreciation parties. But it doesn't come often. So Brian, so tell us a little bit, I know you've just stepped into a new role in your job. Tell us a little bit about your work, this new role and what especially some of these changes has meant to you lately. So my name is Brian Jeter. I work at Starbucks. I just got promoted to being a barista trainer which means that I train and make sure that everybody who comes through Starbucks or my location are properly trained in the skills, the necessary knowledge, just tax in general, making sure you're following procedures, sequencing correctly. And that's what I do. That's what I do or my position at the store. Great. And now you mentioned to me that you've been in this store for I think about a year, is that correct? Yes, ma'am. I actually took a year off before I returned back because I was unsatisfied with the previous management and things. So I took a year off and I came back. And now to me, when I come back it means I get to help people when it comes to customer service because I know there are a lot of people who come in, come out. You know, some people may sit around and chit chat with you but more so it's like, I got to get my coffee and go write the work. That's cool. It's not a, hey, good morning, how are you? Thank you for being here today. Half the time is, let's say for example, John Mobile orders, you know, Grande vanilla latte and we place it on the stand.  You know, I appreciate you being here today. And that would mean the world to me. But a lot of times it doesn't happen. You know, I make the drink and that's what it is. That's what it is. So we're, and that's gonna be the next question is sort of how is technology changing? But before we get there, I know you had mentioned to me that you've just recently qualified for benefits. Yes, ma'am. So can you talk us through a little bit? This is an issue that came up a lot in our interviews was the struggle for securing employer provided benefits. You've just, your life has just changed because those have been introduced. Can you tell us a little bit about what that means to you? Okay, so when I first came back to the company, I feel as though as a worker, when you hit a time clock, you are obligated or, I'm sorry, you are supposed to be given these benefits.  But I don't believe they kick in until maybe a year of your employment. And I believe everybody gets a window of opportunity to apply for benefits. Now, my benefits kicked in in October. So that would have been my one year cycle. And I'm glad that they're there now, how I have them because I was actually going through something where I actually needed these benefits. But before I had them, I would suffer. It wasn't working for me. But as soon as I got the benefits, it meant a lot to me because it's now like, the company kind of values me a little more. They, I feel like they invest the time into my work just by giving me the benefits. And I appreciate it a lot because I really didn't need it. So now I'd like to talk a little bit. Brian teed this up that there has been some changes into his job with the introduction of various technological innovations. So Cordelia, can you tell us a little bit about how technology has changed the grocery store where you work? And how do you feel about that? So in 41 years, it has changed a lot. When I came in, as a matter of fact, I had worked there a year before we actually changed over to the scanners. And so I did the old punch button for a year. And so when we got the scanners, it was difficult at first. And, you know, we caught on and we just had the right setup. We had definitely the right setup. And then as I said before, when our owner died and they sold the company, they took all of ours out and put theirs in. And it made my job a lot harder. Their technology wasn't ergonomically right. It hurt the body. And they didn't come and ask us, well, how is this working out? Well, it's not working out. So people were getting more hurt and have to go out more because of technology. Amber, you had some experiences in your job as well at the front end. So can you tell us a little bit about, especially recently, some of the technological introductions? Sure. So I'm a bookkeeper at my store and when they replaced four of our cash registers with self-checkouts, those were our express lanes. And so the self-checkouts would now be considered as your express lanes. We would have at least one cashier come in at the start of the day, which would be six o'clock.  And now you just have the self-checkouts for at least the first hour of the day. So you have customers who don't want to ring their own groceries all the time. And it tends to be a bit of a, well, is there anybody here? So now we have to go and maybe call somebody from a department to try to come up or the bookkeeper, myself, I'll have to come out and help and that weighs down on what I have to do essentially in the back on what I should be focusing on my bookkeeping job. So it took away jobs because now you don't have that more than cashier there. You might not get one another couple of hours.  And that's the biggest thing, taking away the cashier's jobs, taking away those hours from our cashiers. And I remember in our conversation, you also mentioned what do you think the view is amongst your colleagues and also the customers about some of the self-checkout? So. You can be honest. Self-checkout, it weighs heavy on the store because everybody's not honest. They steal and that makes the brass of groceries go up because now strength plays into the factor where they have to record this and it makes everything else go up. So you have the customers who come in not so honest. They slag the stuff past. You have the cashiers who are missing out on money that they could be making because now we have these four self-checkouts here and replace of them and the price of grocery goes up. Now, Brian, I know something that struck me is you are customer service legend. Yes, ma'am. You really care about customer service.  Can you tell us how being a barista has changed recently? And how do you think, how do you feel about that? And how has it changed how you do customer service? Okay, so before they were really heavy on mobile ordering and things. It was more so you were more connected to the guests. And so before... What did that look like? What do you mean? When you were more connected to the guests. Oh, it was more so you actually had that one-on-one time. You actually had time to stop, take a moment, forget about work, just interact or being human and just trying to figure out what somebody's day was like. Because like now I always tell people that, some people, they go into work with a high strung boss, they have rules with an iron fist, and sometimes when they get into the car, they're like, oh my goodness, I gotta go to work, I gotta punch a clock, a boss gotta stand over me. But I look at it as when they hit the counter, it's more so, hey, good morning. Heading into work today, yeah, we'll talk back and forth. He'll describe what their day will be like. I try to encourage them, you got this, you know. You got this. And I'm sure that anybody who goes through Starbucks, that's sometimes the first thing that they... Yeah, it's true. I mean, yeah, I just try to motivate people, just to keep a high head up, and we're here for them. Yeah, to be able to have a conversation with the person. That's the human interaction, in the cashier line as well, yeah. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am. And so what feels different now? Oh, they really are on, they're on mobile orders hard. They, at one point, they was like, we gotta push mobile orders, we gotta push mobile orders. Well, what about people that actually take time to come through the door, stand in line, spend their money? And isn't it to a rush to go to work? Cause I know there are some people who, I come across that stand in the lobby, they wait for the rush to end, and say, I appreciate you, thank you, and I give them some dap, and I'm big on customer service, so it's always about making the person feel good. It's not always about mobile ordering and the coffee, how much it costs, and sometimes, a lot of times, and this is me being honest, I look out because I know what it's like. Coffee is now 270, before it was like 195. And that was easy for people. And I can sympathize with the customer. So I love the interaction, the one-on-one. And so technology, that some of these changes has changed that interaction? Yes, ma'am. When it comes to mobile ordering and Uber Eats, I just feel like it's taken over, because when I look at the schedule, they make the schedule three weeks out, and you'll look at the schedule and be like, man, where are my hours? And I can tell you, mobile orders, the sales for mobile orders, they go up, they always look at the numbers at beginner's shift, mid-shift, at the end of the shift, and they have a target that they have to reach. But sometimes, I'm like, forget the target, what about us? Like, we the ones who are in the back line, and we make the stuff, and you can't sit here and replace us, when it comes to hours and the people, you can't make them do more work for less hours. I mean, it just don't make sense, you know, at least to me. That's great, thank you, Brian. Cordia, I wanted to pick up on something that Amanda raised in her remarks. We heard a lot from some of the women we interviewed, in all sorts of settings, that even some of them were offered promotions to step into a management role, but they found it stressful, and they didn't want that. Can you reflect a little bit on your own experience or your views on this? Why do you think some women management positions are not attractive? Well, management positions are not attractive where I am, because you don't get paid as well, and maybe not as well as the man, but you don't get paid as well. You already know the knowledge, and you've already started doing all of those things, so why would you wanna move up and take more headache on for a quarter more, or something like that? You know, you're not gonna do that. And it doesn't look attractive for childcare. It's just certain things that they don't look at when you start moving up, but you have to look at it. Yeah, and Amber, do you have thoughts on that as well? Yeah, men, not all men, but you don't normally hear the man say, hey, I have to go get dinner done, or I have to get these kids, and I have to do homework. And it's been known time and time again, they'll pay a man more than they'll pay the woman.  So I'm gonna pick up on another, I know in some of our conversations, Amber, you talked about how there's some potential changes in your store, there was a new ownership, people are a little worried about whether jobs are gonna stay. Can you reflect to us what the potential of job change means to you? And how you- Ooh, it's scary, you guys. It's very scary, especially because I came into this job right out of high school, so first job, first real job, you know. And so the thought of changing to a new job, maybe getting more money, but losing that healthcare and having to wait on that again, it's scary. It's very scary. And when you're faced with this potential, do you, where would you get support? Do you feel that you have resources to help you guide you in terms of thinking about what other types of jobs are out there or to connect you to work? I do feel as though I have resources. Now, at one point in time, I was not aware of them, you know, but I do feel that I have resources where I can go and ask people about certain things. Yes. Brian, I have a question for you. So you've talked a little bit about how technology is changing customer service. You've also told me that you're very tech forward. Yes, ma'am.  So can you reflect, you know, you've told me some very interesting perspectives on technology. Can you reflect a little bit about when you look at the future and you're someone who's very tech forward, but also loves customer service, what would you like to see in the future for you personally? I just would like to see stability for an actual human being, the people who actually punch the time clock, who wake up early, leave the house early, you know, and it's just more so stability, you know, don't replace us. We are the people in the front line. We're here for them. And in the future, I just, that's my biggest concern is stability. Stability, that's great. So we're gonna turn to invite some audience participation. So do we have a microphone that's moving around or perhaps not? If you have a question, raise your hand and hopefully you can project. Oh, there we go. Okay, great. Anyone has a question for our panelists? And this is Ariane, who's from the IWDPR and has done amazing research on women and the future of work in particular. This is amazing research, an amazing panel. I just wanted to ask a follow up question. I think Amber, you said you know where to go to get advice on the where to go for future jobs. Could you say a bit more where you would go who was helpful, what maybe more helpful even or less? Yes ma'am. So the company that I work for, Shoppers Food Warehouse, it is a unionized company. So I would reach out to my union representatives to see if they could point me in different directions or maybe the right direction ago. Because like I said, I came to this job right out of high school. So it's very comfortable, you know. But at the place where I am, because my company in particular is going through what they are going through, I would look towards my union. That's great, Amber. I know in some of our earlier conversations, this question of what else to do is a big one. So can you talk us through, it's hard to figure out what else to do. And you've told me you've got a lot of experience with retail and with bookkeeping. If you wanted to make a switch to something totally different, talk us through the ease at which that could happen. You know, honestly, I'm going through it right now and I still don't know which way to go. Just in all honesty. Because like I said, it's scary. And the scariest thing about being scared is being scared because you don't know what to do, you know. So, but the transition is just, in my eyes, how I see it now is just righted out to the end.  I don't just want to walk away from it. But I do know that I have to prepare myself to walk away to something else. Thank you, Shabo, here at New America. As I was listening to you powerfully articulating a lot of the challenges that we often are trying to fix through public policy. And so, as I was listening to you, I was thinking a lot about legislation around predictable and fair schedules and guaranteed hours and part-time parodies so that part-time jobs have the same wage level and benefits as full-time jobs would prorate it. But I'm curious, sort of from your perspective, how much difference do you think public policies like that would make in your day-to-day lives? And would you know how to get the information that you would need to be able to assert your rights? Should those laws be in place? Or maybe some of you are working in jurisdictions where those laws are in place already. And if you can talk a little bit about what works and what doesn't. So all of our, you're in the district and you're in Maryland, is that right? And you're in Maryland, okay. So the question is if there, so we talked a little bit about the unpredictability of schedules. Or there's a, one of the themes that came up in our interviews was being involuntarily part-time. This idea that this came up time and again. While some workers did have a full-time schedule, a lot struggled to get those hours. And there was a common theme that companies have moved the bar on how many hours are required to get those benefits. So Vicki's asking a really good question. I guess we have a lot of policy experts in the room who are thinking, everything you're saying, they're thinking, what do we need to do differently with policy so that the situation is better? So the question would be what if there was a law that mandated predictability in schedules? Or dealt with some of these issues of, for involuntary part-time. Can you imagine that improving work on your end? And I know both Cordelia and Amber are part of UFCW. Brian, who is involved with project, he's not, he has no union representation. So I'd be even curious to know how you get information even about your rights or law change. So I'm eager to hear sort of whether you think some of this legislation could be beneficial to you and also where you would get that information.  That's about it for me. I mean, I don't have nobody I can go to or I can't ask nobody. You know, hey, you know, what can I do or what are the laws that are set in place? Because I'm 26, I don't have any guidance, you know. But I follow the, I follow some media, you know, I try to be involved, but that's as much as I can get.  Yes, ma'am. And Cordelia and Amber, any thoughts about whether you think some of this could help? And your, I think it could help. Now going about trying to make the changes will probably be the hardest thing. It would be better to come as a group than as just an individual, I would think so. I think it would just make it a little bit easier to not confront, but talk to the legislators and maybe even have them to wanna talk to you because when you're coming as just one, it's kind of like, okay, I have this one person here, but these are thousands of other folks here. But if you get together with maybe some of your associates from other Starbucks and things of that sort, that would make it maybe a little bit easier to get in contact with legislators and people of importance.  Yes I am. I have a bigger voice than my own. I do have thousands of people standing behind me. And I should have mentioned, and you're also a shop steward, is that correct? Yes I am. Okay, so you have an active role in your union. Yes I do. One of the issues that have emerged is that, a very small fraction of the workforce has union membership. And in a lot of these jobs that stand to change, there's nobody necessarily representing those workers in those decisions. So I think this leaves this question, I think there's people in the room wondering, what is it gonna take to shift some of those power differentials in the workforce? How do you give workers like you, Brian, who there are decisions happening all around you and you don't necessarily have a way in, how do we make sure that your voice is heard and you have a way to exercise some agency over your future? So I know you're very involved in unions, you were involved in project retail. Any thoughts about how to help the workers who for instance don't have the union representation that you have? They have the organized. The organized. Yeah but it's gonna be hard. We're just the people. I mean we're the little people again. Starbucks is a big company. They got stores lined up and down where I work, Pennsylvania Avenue. They're all running the stores. Yeah but even then I feel like you voice your concerns and I'm not the only one, I'm the biggest voice in my store. But that's what we're all gonna have to recommend. And I do, sometimes you get discouraging because you come to your higher ups with these concerns and you think they're listening but they're not and then the situation may arise again or something around the lines may arise again and then you'd be like man, did he really take what I said into consideration? And you know, I go to not even just my boss, the people who work under him like my shift leaders, sometimes I go to my ASM, my ASM, and I'm being honest, she has helped me the most. I've had big concerns like when it comes to promotion, how I fail, me just changing my mind about like, I don't need this, I'm young, I got a time. But she motivates me and she helped me get what I need and I love that about her but when it comes to going above her, no man. It's hard. It's hard. And I have another question. When you think about your work and as a human, what you're bringing to that job, what is something that you would hope that your employers or decision-makers keep in mind about what makes you uniquely human in your job? What is special that you want to make sure is valued when there's decisions happening on change, for instance? The customer connection. Customer connection. And that's what we call it at our store, customer connections. And that's another thing that they're big on. They have a score system and they're always pushing customer connection. So you know, I go out my way to make sure that the guests are satisfied. If your drink is wrong, I make it over for you. Just let me know.  You know, like, what's wrong? Like, I got you. You know, I'm always sympathized with the customer. Right.  Got it. Make this the moment right. Great. So that customer connection. How about you, Cordelia? Pretty much the same thing, the customer connection. You can't replace that with a machine. You can't replace that with looking at somebody and saying, you okay? Is everything okay today? Is it something else I can help you with? You can't replace that. Right. And you had mentioned to me before how there are customers that you've known a long time. Long time. So give us the sort of, we obviously know, you know, some of the function of the cashier is getting them out the store. But tell us a little bit about what you think that human connection means to your customers. That human connection means a lot. I know most of them by name. A lot of people like to be called by their name, especially if you see them more than two or three times. Right?  You know, and we talk about our families that we're just humans.  We're gonna talk to you and say, hey, what's going on? And you're looking for something. What do you need? You know, we're gonna try and take care of you. A robot cannot do that. That's great. Amber, how about you? So, connections, yes. But just dignity and value in doing the job that I do. You know, like she said, the customer connections, number one thing, because they keep coming back because of you. Because of you. That's right. They want to see you.  We know our customers' birthdays and things of that sort. Exactly. After you continue to see somebody for so long, you just want them to know that you value what you do. That's great. Oh, and if I may say something. Please, Grant. I always try to put myself in the customer shoes, you know. So, I always take myself out of being a barista and put myself in the customer. I always stand on the opposite side of the counter and just assess the environment. I always want to make sure that are we doing everything in our power to make sure that everybody who's on the opposite side of the counter good? And that's one thing I can take away from my experience working at Starbucks. I always try to put myself in the customer shoes. And what these two young ladies have said, like customer connections, knowing their names, that's real big. People feel valued when you know their name. Nobody wants to be, hey man, or hey sir, good morning.  You should know my name. But yeah, that's what I look forward to actually going into work. When I see the people who I could put a smile on their face, like I know people by name. I don't think I'm gonna say their name, but. I go through them when they were having pregnancies and they bring their kids in. Like, I just connect and it warms my heart because I got brothers and sisters, like if they were to go to the store, I want the same treatment for them. And even though I don't got kids or actual responsibilities, I'm still human too. Make me feel good.  That's great. Thanks. I think we might have time for one or two more questions. Julia Craig. I'm Julia Craig or I'm with the Brookings Institution. It's another think tank like New America here in Washington. I'm really struck by the sacrifices that you all surely made to participate in this research and also, I mean, to be with us here today. So I just wanna thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. But I also just wanna know, in part, you know, why? Like, what do you hope to get out of this? And what do you hope this research will ultimately, you know, someday kind of circle back to impact your lives in a better way? Great. I would just like to see, I like to see a lot change. And I know change doesn't happen overnight. It takes time.  We, we go, we actually, well, for me, I'm gonna speak for myself. I stretch myself pretty thin because as a trainer, it gets pretty hard. And like for me as right now, I'm training the store manager and that is hard. And Barista Basics, that is hard. Because for me, I have to know all the standard, all the everything to the T. And I wanna make sure that I'm training him correctly. And, you know, it's a lot of pressure. So I just want like stability in a company as a whole, not just for my store or down the street, you know, everybody, you know, and I don't wanna be forced out because I feel like that's what the company try to do, they try to force you out just by cutting your hours.  Like I said, they make our schedules three weeks out. And yeah, that's a lot. And you never know what people got going on in their lives week to week, you know, things come up, anything is possible. So I, you know, I just wanna see change when it comes to like stability in hours, a steady work, you know, work schedule, equality when it comes to work. I mean, it varies for me at least because I see everything happen every day. I'm just appreciative to let my voice be heard as a worker. Nobody really wants to hear the worker. They think we're complaining or something like that. And it's not about complaining. It's about letting you and other people know what's really going on. And as technology comes in, try to incorporate that in with us. And not just push yourself. Don't take it to work against us or, you know, without us, let it work with us. We can work together. I mean, we know it's coming. You know, it's trickling in, it's coming, but let it work with us. And we don't hear them all. We hear it, we hear it, but let it work with us. Don't force us out. So she pretty much said it. I wanted to get my voice heard. Like she said, technology is gonna come wherever we like it or not. But don't just try to push us out, you know. Bring it in, give us a crash course so it can help us, you know. And not just be our replacement, right? I think we might have time for one final question. Yes, I'm getting the green light. Yes, in the back. There's a microphone coming. Michelle Wilson with the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. I'm curious about these spaces. Think about technology and the future of work. If you've identified opportunities to incorporate your passion for customer service, right? These spaces, as you say, take us along with you. Have you identified spaces in terms of what that would look like? I'm sorry. Can you flash that out a little bit? So when you talk about your passion for workforce, I'm sorry, workforce solutions. When you talk about your passion for customer service, mobile orders, is there anything around that space where you could bring that into that arena? Does that make sense? Into the technology solutions. Into the technology solutions. Oh, I see. So how can they bring some of their passions and what they, into technology? Right. So that's an interesting question for you, Brian. So there's all this change happening at Starbucks and you're a brilliant at customer service. Do you see any opportunities? Also, you're very tech forward. So I'm wondering if there's a positive complementarity. And even, we've talked before about maybe in the distant future, a different type of job. Like what, can you imagine blending your passion with maybe some of these new technologies that are just shifting? Yeah, but I feel like, correctly, if I'm saying this wrong or incorrect, give us a chance. People who actually, like you say earlier, it's hard to kind of get into certain opportunities because of like education and things. Now me, for example, I didn't go to college. So I don't have like, after high school experience. And nobody wants to hire nobody who don't have an educational background. Now me, I'm probably one of the, I'm not going to my own home. You can do your own. But I'm one of the best. I sell it. You know, if I ever wanted to change my mind and like kind of work transition into like technology and give ideas as to how we can improve, most definitely, but don't limit me because I don't have a degree. If I'm saying that correctly. Oh yes, absolutely. You have a lot to bring to the table. Yeah. And you don't want to feel limited. Yeah, like I said, I don't have extra responsibilities. No babies or any of this, you know, of the nature. But give me a chance. No dog. Is that what you're trying to say? No dog. Yeah. Okay, that's great. I think we're probably out of time, but I want to welcome everyone to join me in thanking sincerely Brian, Cordelia, and Amber.  I know that everyone rearranged their work schedules to do this, but they were really integral to our report. You'll find some of their stories in our report, but I know that all of us who engaged with hearing from them, it changed how we think about the future of work. And I hope that some of you are also walking away with some really great insights, but thank you for your willingness to be part of this process and to join us today. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. We have one more panel, so if my fellow panelists could come up please. And while they're coming up, I'll just say as somebody who has been a policymaker for a long time that, you know, those of us who are professionals in the policy world know a lot of stuff, but we too infrequently remember to listen to the voices of the people who the policies are about. And I just thought that was a tremendously powerful panel and a really good illustration of what policymakers need to be thinking about and who they need to be talking to when they make policy. So really just deep appreciation for all of you and what you're contributing to this conversation. So again, I'm Cecilia Munoz. I'm a vice president here at New America. And this is our panel of fellow policy nerds that I'm very grateful have joined us. We have Alan Hansen, who's a mobilization director at the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400. And Alan helped us connect with some of the workers that you met today and that we spoke to for the report. Spencer Overton is the president of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. He's also a tenured professor of law at George Washington University. And Chandra Childers is a study director at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. And Chandra, if it's okay, I wanna start with you. One of the things that the data has showed us is that there's a little bit of a gap between the coverage that you see in the media about, in particular about automation and about the future of work. When people talk about automation and machine learning and the sort of robots coming for our jobs conversation. The photos that we tend to see are of factory floors or of truck drivers. But the data tells us that we're actually more likely to see effects among women in the workforce. Is that what you have found? And can you talk a little bit about the impacts on women? Yes, definitely. And I think that when we're talking about automation, robotics, all of that and the impact, we do hear a lot about self-driving cars and what that will do to truck drivers. That's been a big one really with the focus on men. But when we look at the jobs where men and women actually work and because men and women are segregated into different occupations, we do see big, excuse me, big differences. And what we find, especially around, for example, clerical occupations. Those are occupations that are done predominantly by women, many of those you'll have upward of 90% of women in some of these occupations. And those are occupations that are facing big threats from automation. They have really high automation potential. And we've also seen, looking back, we've already seen a lot of change taking place in those occupations. So we've seen a lot of the jobs that have been replaced in those occupations just looking back over time. So that is a real concern and it's really important for us to really focus on those and preparing those women workers for the future, for the next step, for the jobs that are coming up next. And what, did anything strike you or stand out for you in the panel that you just heard? One of the things that really stood out to me in looking and talking about technology and the impact of that was, we talk a lot about how technology and automation might eliminate jobs, how it might get rid of jobs. But the one thing that I think also doesn't get talked about enough is how technology is being used to make jobs worse. How technology is being used to control workers, to surveil workers, to control how much time they spend doing, making sure they're spending as little time as possible in certain activities, where they go, their activities, and how it does serve to dehumanize. That was one thing that I heard very clearly in that panel is that it's being used to really take their jobs and take the humanity out of it. So that was one thing that really did stand out to me in that panel. Thank you. I was also struck by, I mean, I heard several of you say, look, we're willing to work with technology, but it would be useful if we were involved in the design, if we were involved in selecting this word. As people who know the jobs, that your perspectives can be really valuable in making sure that the technology and the use of it takes into account what you know. And I think that is a perspective which is often missing. We talk a lot here in the public interest technology work that I do here at New America that we should be using things like user-centered design to engage the people who know the stuff in the design of the stuff, which is ultimately going to affect them. And that could create a sense of agency which feels to me like it's missing in the conversation and which doesn't have to be missing. So Spencer, let me turn to you. Another thing that we see in the data is a particular potential for impact on African-American workers. And this is something that you have looked into that there aren't a lot of institutional actors out there focusing on the black community and automation and what the future of work looks like for workers. But you are, can you talk a little bit about your work and what you're finding? Sure, thank you so much. And just thanks for this work. This human-centered piece is incredibly important. It's something that's missing in a lot of the discussion. So thanks so much for the work. So there are so many things that I heard today and in reading the report that we have seen in our work. This stability, job security piece as a benefit is significant. We did a survey, we think is the largest survey of African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and whites. We found that 40% of African-Americans thought that job stability was the most important benefit compared to only 7% of African-Americans thinking that pathways to new opportunities was the most important benefit. 8% thought that paid training was the most important benefit. So this notion of stability and security definitely is something we saw. Also this notion about money being a barrier to obtaining skills, that was something we saw across the board, that was the biggest barrier. A lot of people wanted to get skills, they wanted mobility, they wanted opportunity, but financial barriers were the most significant thing. The other piece that I heard today in reading the report was this need for good jobs. And we talk a lot about automation and it's certainly important. They're 10 most popular, they're 10 like popular black jobs, right? 10 most popular black jobs, right? Cashiers, retail sales assistants, stock clerks, et cetera, you go down a list, right? About six of those are also on the list of the jobs that McKenzie predicts will displace the most workers by 2030, right, about six of them, right? Now though, some of these others, like home care, worker, personal care aid kind of came through probably when you were talking about, I don't know if it's the pink color or what, right? This kind of childcare work that a lot of the, these jobs are growing because a lot of the population is aging, right? But they're low paying jobs, they don't always have great benefits. So even in those spaces, it's not like there are a lot of great opportunities. About 45% of African Americans have a high school degree or less and another 19% have some college but no degree, right? On average, those folks with high school or less make on average about 28,000 folks with that some college make on average about 38,000. So that's less than the $51,000. So part of this is about good jobs. We talk a lot about automation and that's great, it's wonderful, et cetera, but see to me, part of that goes from starting at that place you mentioned before, that rust belt, white male manufacturing person who was making $55,000, $60,000 a year and it's terrible that that will be gone. Like that's an important population, I don't mean to, but there are other people that we want to have a future and be a part of the future economy as well. Absolutely. So Alan, you're seeing this already in the course of your work, right? You work with workers very much like the ones that we were just speaking with. How are you seeing technology already affecting the workforce and what are you thinking about, worried about, hopeful about going forward? Yeah, so I think they really sort of set the stage for this conversation and sort of talking about the impact of technology on their jobs. And what we see in this work is that, is really the sort of impact of what happens when new technology is implemented without worker input. Just to give an example, we just were actually talking about on the ride over here, that Safeway, a large grocery chain here in the DC metro area, they recently implemented a policy that requires cashiers to not, all of you have been to a grocery store, I'm certain, and you're used to cashiers keying in the product code when you buy a banana or buy a sweet potato or whatever the case may be. So Safeway has bar coded all of those things. And for any of you who has ever tried to scan one of those banana bar codes through a self-checkout, you can't do it, right? And so our members are actually getting written up because they know, an experienced cashier knows that she can enter, she can key in the code faster than it is to scan it through the bar code. But they are requiring them to do that process just to make things more uniform for self-checkout. And so I think this is sort of the perfect example, one of the many, many examples that we see of the implementation of new technology that has no bearing on what workers actually do and the expertise that workers have. But the reason for this, to your point, is that we're seeing a complete gutting of training hours in the store. So somebody will come in, get a two-hour computer-based learning course, and then they'll get thrown out onto the check stand. And when Cordelia and Amber first started, they had a week training. They were training centers. They had to memorize codes and be tested on the product codes. And that's just not something, that type of skilling of the work is just not here. And it doesn't have a place in our industries anymore. Can we, did you wanna add something Spencer? I'll add a little bit. So let's talk about skilling and skills development. So this is a big, big, big piece of the conversation, right? The policy conversation focuses a lot on, well, there's jobs where that automation is going to affect, and some of those jobs, we may have fewer actual roles for people. So that must mean that everybody needs to learn new stuff so that they can work in the sectors that are gonna get created in this economy. So there's like a lot of conversation about training, which feels to me also like it's not a conversation that is involving workers themselves. And among the things I understand that we heard in preparing the study is that we've heard that the education system is failing folks, that so far it isn't working well in terms of helping people develop the skills that they may need for kind of the good jobs of the future. And we also heard that workers are kind of skeptical of it, that they prefer on the job training, that there maybe haven't been served well by online training courses or that they may be, or they also have, you know, lives and families and jobs and therefore it's difficult to, the notion, the really, the notion is that it's kind of all on them to somewhere access a program that can get them some set of unnamed skills, which may be useful as the economy shifts. It feels to me like there is a gap between what's on offer, what people are starting to build to try to offer to workers, and where workers are and what their own understanding is of their needs. Does that sound right based on your work and what you know, Alan, you're nodding your head. Yeah, I mean, again, the old training program was, it was a paid training program. The first couple of weeks of your employment was this sort of intense deep dive into the work that you were doing, whether it was stocking shelves, whether it was running a register, whether it was bookkeeping. Those hours just simply don't exist in the stores anymore. And so then, for workers in order to be able to move up, they have to take that initiative on themselves. They have to pay the cost to attend a vocational program or a training program or something like that. And so it really, it disproportionately impacts people who come out of high school, get the job at the supermarket. They used to be able to rely on having the ability to grow in the job through paid training opportunities that just don't exist anymore. Spencer. And just to build on this, I'm a big believer in skills because I believe in mobility, right, growth. But I think part of the problem is you've got institutions using the skills piece as, you know, it's on them. I don't have any responsibility. If they just got the skills, then they'd be fine. This has nothing to do with me. It's just innovation, et cetera, right? And we all have a role to play. It can't be a scenario where the private sector or government basically says technology is gonna allow us to expand the economy and we're gonna shift the costs of that over to the people who are least situated to deal with that, right? Like, so if there's some benefits, we all wanna enjoy the benefits and we all have to kind of share in terms of the costs of this, right? And this is why we need systems that are human-centered and oriented, so they're realistic in terms of helping folks out. In the past, we've had innovations and, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge Google and Andrew because they've supported us in terms of some work on future work in the Black World South and other things, but if you look at history, innovation like the cotton gen, right? Innovation allowed the United States to displace India and China in terms of cotton production, you know, nation's leading export in terms of cotton. In fact, over half of our exports for the first six decades of the 1800s, right? But obviously it was not human-centered because it expanded slavery and resulted in the expansion of slavery and was not, you know, human-focused, right? When we talk about, okay, we're gonna automate agriculture in the South, you know, cotton picking and other things and we're gonna have factories with no unions and with low taxes and give folks tax breaks and we don't have to invest in education. You know, this is not being human-oriented in terms of investing in human beings, right? As we look toward the future and what economic growth and success is like, largely as a result of technology, you know, success is not based on maintaining cheap labor force through Jim Crow or slavery or the Uppercarrow program or something else, right? It's based on a skilled and talented workforce and the question here is how can we, you know, ensure that a variety of folks have those opportunities and can incorporate them into the reality of their lives? Right, right. Chandra, what about you? What are you seeing in this space? Yeah, and I think, and I would kind of like to build on this idea of what happens when you've got, you know, our policy makers, when you've got the private sector and it's like it's all on workers to be able to adapt and prepare for that future and, you know, some of the work that we're doing, it really is looking, for example, at what's happening when people are trying to navigate and figure out what do they need to do to prepare and one of the things that we're seeing and we all pay for this, one of the things we're seeing is the student loan debt crisis and so what we see is, for example, we're looking at women and black women in particular and trying to balance family and caring for children and trying to get the skills that they need but the traditional educational institutions aren't meeting their needs so they go to these private for-profit colleges where they wind up amassing this debt but then they don't have, they still don't graduate many of them either with a degree or with the skills they need that workers, employers are saying they're looking for. Or with a degree that has value, right? Yes, that has any value out in the private market and you've got employers saying they can't find skills that they need yet without working with making sure that people are getting the skills that employers need, we wind up with this crazy system where we've got this, these are, we're all gonna pay for this at some point so this is something that we all will have to deal with so I think that really is a major issue and like I say, particularly looking at women, looking at first generation college students, looking at people who don't necessarily know how to navigate that higher education system or who are having to balance getting that training with caring for children and parents and other family members, that is really something that really does need to be addressed. So thank you, so let's transition a little bit to the policy conversation. So we're getting a decent diagnosis of the problem of the voices that are not getting heard in the conversation of some of the challenges that workers are already starting to face in the workplace and some of the obstacles to developing the skills or to being present in the decision making that's going to affect their lives. Do you have a sense or are there particular policy conversations that you're looking at that look promising that you think should be invested in further that you think might actually provide beneficial outcomes for workers? Chandra, let's start with you. Well, I mean, you know, some of the, I think some of the first policies that I think about are those that are going to again help workers, help families be able to balance caring for family and caring, you know, and investing in their work, you know, and reading through the report, again over and over they talked about like how they would love to move up or take these other positions, but you can't move up into management working, you know, 12 hour shifts when, you know, they were talking about on the panel when you've got to get the kids into bed and homework done and so forth. But you know, when you look at for policies like affordable, high quality childcare, looking at paid leave, looking at those types of policies that really do help families balance work and family. But I also really do think that we really do need to work around addressing this issue of education. I think that's another area for policy that we really do need to focus on and address what's happening with that. So those are two sets of policies that are really important for me in thinking about how we begin to move forward. Now you're at the Institute for Women's Policy Research when we talk about women policies like childcare and paid leave tend to come up, but this is really coming up in a workplace context in a worker's context. This isn't just about women, is it? No, it's not. This is definitely not just about women, it is about families, but it's also about the bigger picture because if we can get policies in place that work for women, then it benefits everybody. Once we can get those policies in place, everybody benefits and that includes employers as well as workers and it includes men and women. So, and that's just an opportunity for me to make a shameless plug for the Better Life Lab here in New America because this is what they work on. Right, based on the notion that, and this was so pointed in the previous panel, that if we think of ourselves as workers and humans at the same time and have a policy conversation about us as workers and humans at the same time, you get to a different set of priorities and potentially a different set of outcomes and that is a tremendously important conversation to be having. It's certainly about wages and benefits, but also about the flexibility to be the humans that we need to be in our lives. Spencer, what about you in terms of policies that you have your eye on? So, we're coming out with a paper that, let me just set this as the baseline. In education, we look at outcomes of schools and school systems by race. We do it in terms of stops by the criminal justice system as well. We're not doing that right now on a consistent basis with regard to workforce training programs, federally funded workforce training programs. So, having real data on racial outcomes, which programs are successful, what works. So, I think that data is important and disaggregation of data is important as well because I am completely on board in terms of the challenges that women face that you raised. I think something else you all probably saw in the McKenzie report about black men having, being much more likely to be in jobs that were at risk to automation than black women.  Now, those jobs that black women have, a lot of them are childcare workers and a lot of them are not good jobs, right? So, I'm not trying to say that everything's rosy here, right, but I'm just saying disaggregating data allows us to really understand insights. Also, again, skills are important, but it's not just skills, it's what do we need in terms of transportation, childcare, other things. How do we look at the whole person? You've heard K through 12 or really pre-K through 12. We talk about degrees, credentials, high quality certifications for a larger percentage of the population. The two other things I wanna get into and it came out a lot in the McKinsey piece and I think you're working on some of this, this mobility piece, right? We found in our work that job growth projected in the black rural South by 2030 is negative 9%, right? You compare that to Seattle that's about 17, 18% or Reno or Provo, right? So, you got these black areas where even if you have all the skills in the world, there's just no jobs, it's like musical chairs, right? The music stops you, you get displaced or whatever, you can't find a job. So, how do we deal with these mobility issues in terms of people? And it's a tough conversation because politicians don't wanna talk about, a lot of politicians don't wanna talk about mobility and leaving some place and that kind of thing, at least local politicians. And then a couple other big kind of themes you all know about some of the problems with the GI Bill in terms of increasing racial disparities. How do we keep that at the forefront? So when we build systems in terms of a workforce system, it's working for all Americans and doesn't just increase racial disparities. Alan, how much are you focused, is USCW focused on a particular set of policy? Yeah, so what we sort of look at is how do, working for a local union, we have the benefit of sort of thinking about policies that impact us at the bargaining table, impact workers in a local labor market. And so our union was instrumental in passing paid family leave, paid sick days and a $15 minimum wage in Montgomery County in Washington DC. And that is good policy and sort of a smart response in my opinion for declining labor power. But there is an interplay in the policy side and actually strengthening trade unions in the sense that one, what we were able to do with those three policies is use them in contract negotiations with our largest employers to lift wages for workers in jurisdictions that didn't have a friendly political climate. Just the best example of that is we passed $15 an hour in Washington DC. Northern Virginia is still part of the Commonwealth that is stuck at 7.25 an hour. But what we were able to do through the bargaining process is remind Safeway and Giant that a worker could get on the metro, go one stop into the district and double their wages, right? That was a powerful incentive for Giant and Safeway to raise the starting pay in Virginia, not up to $15 an hour, but certainly much higher than what they would have had under Virginia's minimum wage statutes. The other reason why labor unions are important, and this is my plug here, the other reason why labor unions are important is that there is an enforcement mechanism in any of these public policy conversations that is happening, particularly around hours and scheduling. I was part of a group of organizers that went out to San Francisco when San Francisco passed one of the first in the nation Just Hours bills. And in talking to Starbucks workers and talking to retail workers in the city, we saw a couple of different things. Starbucks very smartly took credit for it and went out and touted how they're being a good employer. And this was all because of their large S. Other employers at less reputable retail chains, who I won't mention, said that they hadn't seen any enforcement at all. They hadn't seen it being implemented at all. And so then there is this question, as we talked about earlier, where does the non-union worker turn to to get enforcement of these decisions? And so I do think that any conversation about policy has got to include strengthening labor unions or strengthening mechanisms for workers to have a voice in their workplace and to be able to act to enforce their rights without fear of retaliation. So Alan, let me ask you this. Sure. You know, we'd be in a law professor here, right? So what do you say to that person who says, yeah, companies need to think more about the future work? But they would say, hey, if you look at European models of unions or folks who are focused on technology and knowing it's coming and kind of being a part of the solution and are very future-oriented, could you point to some things that are happening here in the United States in terms of kind of labor, thinking about the future and being kind of a part of innovation in a way that's protective of union members but is also kind of embracing the future and innovation? Yeah, it's a great question. I think this may be why Molly invited me here today. So a couple of different thoughts here. First of all, I definitely agree that European unions have really embraced a different model of union mostly due to a just different social relationship that workers and the government have in Europe. And so one of the things that labor is really talking about these days is this concept of sectoral bargaining. We saw this conversation play out during the General Motor Strike. This idea that instead of bargaining with any one firm, we're setting labor standards for the entire industry. So take wages and benefits out of the equation and then you don't have to compete on price. You don't have to, you don't lift up these low-road employers like Walmart and Amazon that compete on labor costs rather than sort of their innovative product and stuff like that. So I think that having three thinking different models of like sectoral bargaining makes sense. I also think that there is this question of looking at, there are normal response to this hour's conversation. The workers are working part-time, they don't qualify for benefits because they're working part-time. One, we should take benefits out of, make benefits not the employer's responsibility and consider some type of national healthcare system and I'm glad to see the laborers finally coming around on that issue for the most part. And secondly, this is the first time, this would be the first time in the history of the United States labor movement where we are actually arguing that the employer should provide more hours rather than make the hours that they provide pay. That the history of the labor movement is animated by this discussion about shorter hours, whether it was the 12-hour dayfights in the 1820s or the eight-hour dayfights in the 1860s or the fact that in 1935, the Fair Labor Standards Act was a compromise that most unions had actually gone to a 30-hour workweek. I think we need to restart those conversations to say how do we make, if you only need a cashier for four hours during the busy part of the day, well, let's talk about how you make that four-hour shift pay and provide a living wage, right? So I do think that labor does have a responsibility to think differently about this and I do think the European model makes sense. And just to put a point on the hour's conversation, IG Metall, which is the largest German labor union, just negotiated with the steel industry in Germany that a worker can voluntarily drop their hours to 28 hours a week for two years so that they can go to school, get job training, and do those types of things and then come back and retake their full-time position. I think that's a really interesting model for how we could, you know, that we could definitely apply in industries here in the US. So your turn, there is a microphone and already a hand up way in the back of the room, which means you're gonna have to travel a long way to get to the microphone. Thank you. I'm Annalise Skokar and I have the pleasure of being Molly's co-fellow at Brookings so I'm really excited to see this work. So I'm a first-generation college student and if I lived in Switzerland, in high school, I could do an apprenticeship at Google and I could get a certificate at the end of that so I go to school two days a week, three days a week and then I work on the job two, three days a week at Google. I can get a certificate. That certificate is easily transferable into an academic degree program in Switzerland. For me as a human-centered user of that, that's awesome because I get paid in high school, which my parents couldn't subsidize my education at all and I'm still paying my debt. I'm in my mid-40s. So that is a really huge deal and why can't we build that? So looking back, my expertise is in the US workforce system which we do have, but it's very, very, very small and fragmented and so I've dug, I've been to many, many job centers around this country and I can tell you as a user of that system, what you get is passed around from one program to another to try to figure out this eligibility process and that eligibility process and I might make it into a training program but it's totally not clear what is available to me when I go into a job center. So I really would love to see this conversation looking at policy for real workforce development and why our employers are not part of producing a skilled workforce to the degree that they are in some other countries. I think those are the types of questions that might help move this forward. So that's actually an opportunity for another shameless plug on my part because we have a division here at New America that is building a youth apprenticeship network actually and is working in nine locations around the country with all kinds of different kinds of partners to build a network particularly focusing on young people in high school, focusing with employers on developing apprenticeship opportunities in jobs we had an event here actually with a young man who was talking about a job that was actually leading to an aerospace career while he was still in high school. So you're absolutely right that it's important to be investing in pathways that aren't, that where there's evidence in Europe of success but which haven't been as much in evidence here in the United States. Yes. Thank you, Ariane Higavish. Firstly, I want to restate my absolute thanks to the Google Foundation and Andrew for funding all this work that we're doing on different aspects of the future of work which suddenly comes together, right? We just published a report on hours of work and the future of work. You're doing this fascinating work on workers' voices and time was one of the difference in availability of time was one of the big themes of earlier work on how people are able to take advantage of the opportunities in the future of work and that women often don't have that. So, but my question is I'm European, right? And so we always, as soon as we try to put anything forward on redistributing working hours or, you know, basically we say, ah, go away, go to Scandinavia. It just doesn't fly here. And so one of the things that I worked on a lot, for example, so partly what we try to think about technology means you save time, you have more hours. How can we redistribute it? Is there an opportunity to get overall working hours, the 40 hour reference week down a little bit maybe to give more time to others? The second one is flexible access to work. Now in Europe, that couple of countries have lost that say, you as an employer have to tell me why I can't do this job part time. And the case, the examples that came up that I studied when I was in the UK were managers of department stores and supermarkets, right? And they always said, oh, this job needs a 12 hour shift. When in fact, you know, that doesn't align with opening hours and often you need more than two people anyway. So I'm just wondering how creative policy wise can we get in the US beyond paid leave and comparable treatment for part time workers? Reactions, thoughts from the panel? I have some thoughts, but I'm in listening mode for a moment here, so I'm gonna, you know. Jandra, how about you? Well, I'm asking you the question of how creative. I think, I guess I'm looking at this from a political perspective. I think we could definitely get creative. We can come up with a lot of really great ideas about how to address these issues, especially, and basically it comes down to how do we, instead of having one set of people working, you know, 80 hours per week and other people can't get 20 hours per week, really making sure that everyone gets what they need out of that and getting the benefits that they need. I guess where I see the problem is politically being able to actually get policies through. It seems like that's kind of the barrier. And you know, and even earlier talking about what we can do about the education system or a lot of these problems, it seems like a lot of it is the way we're funding, the way we're coming at. We have everything so fragmented and the way we're coming at paying for things that I think that leads to a divisiveness and an inability to be able to get things done. Rather than us coming at this as a country, as a society, we need to do this for our people rather than having everything, you know. And I think that's probably a big part of the problem of being able to actually get things done, even though we may have some great ideas about what to do about issues. Spencer? Andrew Yang's rise is a direct result of traditional politicians not knowing how to talk about this issue, right? Whatever you think about UBI or whatever, he focuses on a problem that other folks have been unable to articulate, right? There's something that is there. Now, there's not a silver bullet, right? We're talking about setting up systems, right? So, you know, after 9-1-1, they say, lay, we gotta have a systemic, we gotta have a homeland security. Obviously there are excesses, there are problems, but my point is nobody said this is the one silver bullet to this problem. Economies, innovation's always happening, economies are always changing. And so as opposed to us being laissez-faire and basically saying, oh, well, there's no more immigration from Europe, so we'll bring some black folks up from down south, or we'll move some people around, et cetera, and it's just happening. I think we have to have systems in place. Again, you think about divided government, three branches, there will always be corrupt people and therefore we want divided government. We want to deal with this structurally, right? Similarly here, there is always gonna be innovation. There are always gonna be changes in the economy. How do we invest and continuously have a national systemic approach that can evolve to deal with these issues?  These are areas where you needed a lot of people to work in the past in mining or in factories, right? And now that people have moved there, they become automated, you need fewer people here and you have some issues. So how do we systemically, this is not a new problem. These problems have existed. How do we set up governmental and private sector structures to address these problems, right? Well, and just to speak to your point, Chandra, about the policy process being broken, which it's kind of hard to argue with that, especially this week, especially in this town. But it is also true that states and localities are innovating and that, right? So you talked about how significant it was for DC to pass policies with respect to wages because that gave you some leverage that you otherwise wouldn't have had. I mean, not everybody is in your unique situation of having DC, Maryland, and Virginia all on top of each other. But the fact of the matter is as standards start to move in other places, you begin to create momentum, you begin to create pressure on companies that are national companies that are, for whom it is hard to implement different standards in different parts of the country. And so I wouldn't give up on local action, local innovation, local government, state governments as places to experiment, to innovate, to iterate so that when we get to a place where we're passing nationwide standards and national policy, we have a little experience under our belt and importantly, we have road tested those policies not on people, but with people. I'm with you, but I think an issue is the free rider problem, right? It's both in the private sector and the public sector. Does a company wanna pay to educate someone else's employees and train someone else's employees? Does a state or a locality want to invest in one area so that someone can move and go somewhere else and benefit another locality? I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. They definitely should do it, right? But I think there is a room for federal action because of the free rider problem that I just mentioned. Yeah, I mean I definitely agree that there needs to be a federal solution to this, but just to your point, just so Walmart, California, that's probably a decade ago, passed a penalty system for missing breaks. If you missed a break, missed a meal period, you got penalized. You got an hour penalty pay for missing that break. Walmart implemented that policy across the entire country because they didn't wanna deal with the regulatory challenge of implementing a policy in California and not having that around the country. So I do think, particularly when we're talking about California, that local legislation, local policymaking can actually have an impact on even the largest employers. I just don't wanna give us a free pass at the federal level here. I mean, look at China, you look at some other places. They're doing some things, right? Other questions? Nothing else from the audience? Oh yes, here's a question. Hi, I'm Sunny with Third Way. One question I have is kind of playing off this idea of creating systems. It seems like we're setting ourselves up to have a series of decades of woes because we don't have a national industrial policy. How would we go about creating the political will to create such a policy in the current landscape? An interesting question. Thoughts from the panel? Oh, go ahead. I'll just, you know, what makes me hopeful is that there is still, you know, the power that comes from people getting in the streets and making their voices heard that, you know, think about the $15 minimum wage. You know, that 10 years ago, five years ago, it was a pipe dream. It is now the sort of like standard policy platform of the Democratic Party, and that came from really militant worker organizing by SEIU and community allies to put the issue on the map and to really disrupt the system and make sure that workers' voices were heard through that process, and so, you know, and I realize that is our responsibility to do that, but like I do think that what we have, part of the way that we have had these different conversations in recent years has been, you know, through more aggressive worker organizing by the labor movement and by these sort of non, you know, non-labor worker organizing groups like Project Retail, Like Fight for 15, and things like that, and so I do think that we have a lot of power to be able to start the conversation and change the parameters of what's possible in this country. So that's actually a great note on which to ask just a closing question through our panelists.  Spencer, how about you? What makes you hopeful? Change and opportunity in terms of it, to me, the story I always love, people are so tired of hearing me talk about it, is, you know, hidden figures, you know, the women who basically went out and learned Fortran when the computer came in, they were ready, and so really looking at change as an opportunity to advance equity and inclusion, right? I think I remain stumped by your very important and pressing question, and to me, that is the big question in terms of how do we have a national, you know, industrial policy and who needs to be at the table and who needs to take the lead, it's a big question. Chandra, what makes you hopeful? I think the things that make me hopeful is I do hear us more and more getting to the point where we are beginning to understand, as this nation becomes more and more diverse, that I think people are really beginning to understand how important it is to that everyone has, we have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to live up to their full potential, because the younger generation coming up, it is much more diverse, and it requires us to stop looking at a lot of the divisions among us and really ensure that that entire generation gets to live up to its full potential. So I think I'm hopeful as I see that younger generation moving up, and as I begin to see us move toward that, I would say that's probably one of the things that give me the greatest development. Thank you, I'll just add to that that, even though the sort of conversation in the ether that happens in policy circles that happens in this space about the future of work, about automation and about how things are transforming, about the growth, the staggering growth in inequality in this country, that conversation tends to get framed in really disempowering terms, but the panel that preceded this one did not sound to me like people who lack agency or people who don't understand that they have power and that what they're contributing is actually tremendously important, and I think we are beginning to see that again in the US that we, you know, this is a democracy, it turns out we all own it together, and that the way you get either to an industrial policy or to a $15 minimum wage, or to a paid leave policy or to advancing childcare or to making sure that care jobs are sustainable jobs is that we have the capacity to insist on it and to work on it and to organize around these things, and you're beginning to see that kind of energy moving in this country in that space and not a moment too soon. So with that, let me thank this panel and the previous panelists and the authors of our wonderful study. And thank you all for being here so much.