Thank you, Carson, for that introduction. I appreciate that. I will introduce Rasmus, and indeed he is a co-author and co-presenter. So I was asked to participate in this interesting conference, and I found it challenging. If you look at the title, you can see why, because I'm supposed to comment on Denmark, and I'm not Danish, I don't read Danish, but I do have a Danish co-author. And I would say a high-quality co-author, and we've been working on this question for the last three or four years, and have even published a paper, and hopefully will produce other papers. So this talk today really reflects a partnership, and it's an ongoing partnership, really trying to understand a comparison between the U.S., where I come from, of course, and Denmark, and the Danish welfare state. And so as an American, I have heard lots of discussions about Denmark. In the 2016 presidential election, Bernie Sanders, who was running for the Democratic primary, for the candidacy to be the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, spoke lovingly and frequently about Denmark and its ideal welfare state. And even Hillary Clinton, who was less vocal about the issue of Denmark, was also talking about central features of the Danish welfare state. And so in the U.S. political context recently, but of course, often even before, there's been much interest in what the welfare state can do and what Americans should take from lessons about Denmark, and its great progress in advancing the cause of equality and social mobility. So Rasmus and I approached this problem a couple of years ago, now three years ago I guess it was, really. Rasmus had visited the University of Chicago, and it was a great visit, and we've continued the work. But one thing that came out, and this is really the theme of the talk today, is that, of course, as Carson just said, well, that the whole question of inequality, and I would add social mobility on top of it, which is a separate but important issue, I think this is a central theme of the Danish welfare state. And we know, if you look at the data, and many people have commented on the data, that after looking at the tax and transfer system, income inequality is low, and income mobility, and by that I mean mobility across generations, how important the parent's income is as a determinant of the child's income, that that is very high, a lot of mobility, much less dependence on the accident of birth, at least in terms of income. However, and this was something that staggered me when we first found it, and that is that educational mobility is remarkably similar between the United States and Denmark. And to me, I say remarkable, because of course there are many features of the American welfare, the American welfare state, and we have one, that are really very much inferior to what's happening here in Denmark. And so to me the question is, this is very odd, we're having greater income inequality reduction, we're getting much more social mobility in terms of income, yet in terms of a basic skill, central to success in the modern economy, anywhere in the world, education, that there really isn't so much mobility. And so, begin to look more closely, and we're still continuing to look closely, at what are substantial skill and education gaps between children with different family backgrounds. And that's true here in Denmark, it's certainly true in the United States. And of course the skills that we're going to talk about, we'll briefly mention that list of skills, it's not just IQ, it's not just PISA scores, it's not one item, it's a whole bundle of items, but in fact these skills are very important. And the effects of some of this inequality and the lack of or success of and promoting skills lead to multi-generational impacts. So let me just show you what is now a central figure in world discussions of mobility and inequality. This is called the Gatsby Cur, it's after a book, Alan Krueger, now a Princeton but previously chief economist under the Obama administration coined the term the Gatsby Cur. And this is a curve that displays two relationships. One is a relationship at the bottom, if you look at the bottom of the graph, it gives you inequality after taxes and transfers. This is inequality and family income. And if you look for example at the Scandinavian states together, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and you'll see that the Gini coefficient, which is a measure of inequality, family inequality, very low in Denmark and relatively high about the same level as that of Singapore and China in the United States. So there's real difference if you just look at Gini coefficient differences. And if also you look at income mobility, and here I'm showing you an equation that relates the income of the child averaged over the lifetime or a substantial stretch of the lifetime related to the income of the parent. And if the relationship is one of high mobility, this coefficient beta should be close to zero. And so the higher beta, the more the origins of the family affect the origin, the final destination of the child. And you can see then in the United States, the relationship is very high. In Latin America, it's even higher. You can see Peru, Brazil, some of these countries are very unequal and they're also very low social mobility. But of course in Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, you find very high measure of social mobility, a low value of beta. This relationship, however, is also very suggested. It's an empirical relationship. Those countries that have high inequality also tend to have high immobility. And that is what this Gatsby curve shows. Gatsby comes from this book, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, documenting the high life of the affluent in the 1920s in the U.S. So it was Kruger's whimsical title. But it captures the notion that there really seems to be a relationship empirically. There is between inequality at a point in time, in a society, and what happens in the next generation. So this is an important relationship that's very much documented around the world. Many different variants of this, Miles Korak has probably done the most work, but so forth. Now one thing that's extremely interesting about the Danish welfare state compared to the U.S. is, of course, that if we look at the expenditures on educational institutions, and it was this that attracted so much attention in the 2016 election, and has still attracted attention around the world, state of Vermont, many other countries, states within United States pointing to this, is that expenditures not just in public schools starting from kindergarten on, but in the pre-primary schools are much more favorable towards children, young children in Denmark than in the United States. And if you look at the whole bundle of educational expenditure, Denmark is much more generous. And so in this sense, the question is, look, Denmark is far more generous, and it shows up, as you'll see, in the sense of reduced inequality in test scores taken, measured by children in school. So using a lot of the current measures that we see and use around the world, we see that Denmark is far more generous. And this is part of the welfare state, part of the expenditure that Carson was talking about. Yet, and this is what staggered us, and I think this is what's important today, is that there is steep gradients of children's education in parental education, income and wealth in both the U.S. and in Denmark. And so if you look at what's called the IGE, this is the analog, not any more of looking at the relationship between the income in one generation than the income in the next. But here, a relationship between the education of the parent and the education of the child, you can see that Denmark, which has a much lower genie coefficient in terms of after income tax and transfers, Denmark's IGE, the relationship between parent schooling, child schooling, actually, if anything, is more strongly related, but of the same order of magnitude as in the United States. And that, to me, is very surprising. And here, I'll let Rasmus show some data that he discovered recently, which I think is extremely important, which will form the core of our discussion. So we're going to move back and forth. I hope you don't mind this orchestrated presentation, or maybe not so well orchestrated but you get Rasmus. Well, thank you, Jim. Yes, as Jim said, there's a strong dependency between children's education and parents' education, even in Denmark. But actually, this dependency starts at birth. So what this figure shows is birth characteristics, so birth weight of a child, the fraction of children who can basically go home from the hospital after birth, who are not admitted to a neonatal ward, by their mother's education. So blue is if mother only has compulsory schooling. So red is if mother have high school, or academic or vocational, or green is if mother have a college degree or higher. And what we can see is that they're even at birth, by birth weight, are significant differences between different educational levels of mothers in Denmark. And if we look at the fraction that are admitted to a neonatal ward, I mean, these are not trivial differences, 40% more are admitted to a neonatal ward if mothers have a compulsory schooling only, relative to if mothers have a college degree. So these are huge differences. And these continue. So if we go to, say, daycare, so Bernhauer-Ellen, we see basically the same differences. Again, sorted by mothers' education. So blue is mothers have compulsory schooling, red mothers have academic or vocational high school, and green is mothers have college or higher. So now we see rated self-regulation scores from age three to five. And again, we see the same differences, and age three. So these are differences that have emerged earlier, actually, than children start daycare. And they basically persist all the way up until children start school. And we can look at what happens in school. So now we see test scores in Danish, in school.  And this is constant, from grade two to grade four to grade six to grade eight. So of course, we can see that the pattern we saw basically at birth is the same pattern we can trace all the way up until age 14 to 15. So very stable. Then some might think that, well, life is more than test scores. So if this was just test scores, then it's this important. Well, we could continue in life. So now we can look basically at who stays clear of crime. So a fraction of children that do not commit crime, again, by mothers' education. It's basically the same pattern.  Or we can look at education. So final years of education, that goes back to the education idea. So there's a two and a half year difference on average between the green and the blue dot, so by mothers' education level. Or even income at age 40. So almost a 50% difference in wage income at age 40 by your background. So a huge dependency basically from birth all the way up until adulthood. But it continues. So we can look at who has a health such that they haven't contacted a hospital between their age 40 and 50. It's basically the same differences again. Who are in the labor force at age 54, the same differences again. It's even who's alive at age 60. So perhaps a bit dramatic, literally from the cradle to the grave. And not only that, it's basically all the core areas in the Danish welfare state, so we have prenatal care. We have daycare, childcare. We have public schools. We have crime prevention, the judicial system. We have higher education, income taxation, health care, retirement, old age. But this is just within a lifespan, across a life cycle. But it's also stable, these differences across time, across the entire expansion of the welfare state. Many of these differences actually remains quite stable. Even though there's tremendous progress, both in terms of access to services, but also in terms of the technology, as Carsten told us. So one example is child mortality. So child mortality by age five. So he is separated by mother's education. So the solid line are mothers who have compulsory schooling only, and the dashed lines are mothers who have high school or higher. So what we can see is that child mortality has been decreasing, and it has so for probably hundreds of years now. But from the 70s until today, it's been cut by, say, 60% to 70%. So a very, very strong increase, basically, in one of the basic fundamentals, child mortality. And it's done so for all groups. But if we look at the gaps between the groups, we see that they're quite constant. You can see the gray line in the button. That's actually the gaps in absolute terms. And if we consider the gaps in relative terms, they're actually increasing. Another example could be education. So this shows the fraction that attains college degrees by your father's educational level and by birth cohort. So what we see is, for say, for children born in the start 60s. So if your father had compulsory schooling only, around 10% got a college degree. If fathers have a high school, then it was 15%. And if fathers had a college degree themselves, then it was around 30%. Then we fast forward up to children born in the mid-80s. We see that now, well, 20% whose fathers only have compulsory schooling get a college degree. So that's been progress, for sure. 30% whose father have a high school degree gets a college degree. And 60% of those whose fathers have a college degree get one themselves. So relatively speaking, the 10, 15, 30 and the 20, 30, 60 are the same across 30 years, across the entire expansion of the educational system. And actually in absolute terms, it's been expanding the differences. And when we look at educational mobility, overall, as for instance with the education IG, that's also gonna affect how we look at trends. So of course, these differences have large impacts because these gaps in educational attainment, they shape our lives. For instance, we can look at crime. So who commits crime depending on their own education? So here we see crime rates again by year of birth and by educational attainment of oneself. So not the mother, but now the individual itself. We see that, well, for those who only have compulsory schooling, 25 to 30% commit crime. And it continues to be so, both for those born in the 60s and for those born in the mid to late 80s. If you have high school, so much less commit crime, so only around 10%, 10 to 15%, but still a substantial gap. And if you have college, it's only around 5%. So these gaps are basically stable over a 25th period, 25 year period. If anything, they're actually increasing, even though that we have this vast expansion of the Danish welfare state. And perhaps the most dramatic consequence is if we look at lifetime. So this is life expectancy by at age 30 by your own education. So again, the same story we've seen progress. So life expectancy has increased and it continues to do so. Here we see it by education, so compulsory schooling only, high school or college again. And if you look at the differences, even though that all the groups on average see progress, the differences are basically the same. They're the same for those born in the early 60s as they are for those born in the early 80s. And that is the question. That is the central question, right? Why do these gaps arise, even in Denmark? And why do they not close? Why do they appear to be so stable? And that also raises a question about how much do we actually know about the root of inequality? And that's really important, because if we don't know what the roots are, if we don't know what causes these differences, then it's hard to address from a policy perspective. So how do we interpret these differences? So one might think that it's genes, so that it's basically all genetics and we can't do anything. So your life expectancy is just given by who you were born from, by your parents genetically and not by, say, your childhood, et cetera. But of course that's what Jim's work, among others, basically speaks against. That there's a large part of evidence that demonstrates the importance of early investments. Okay, I'll take over again. I would point out though, correctly, right? That in fact those gaps are there even when you remove immigrants from the population, right? This is not just an immigrant phenomena. So this is, I think, very important that this is something, if you want to call it, say, the many generation tradition of living and being born in Denmark and being raised in Denmark, you still find these gaps. Yeah, all these figures are from native Danes. Yeah, exactly. So that's something, and even be worse in some sense if you included the immigrant population. So here's where we're trading off again. What I wanna talk about is some work about understanding these gaps. Now the reason why this is so staggering for an American to see these kinds of gaps here in Denmark is that of course we understand in the United States why there might be these huge gaps. We have enormous differences in schooling expenditure even by, certainly across states and within states by certain neighborhoods where local expenditures really shape the nature of the school investment decision. So there are many ways Americans are accustomed to this kind of inequality, but what's interesting and what is the research challenge that we face and we are facing right now is, look, in some sense Denmark is a laboratory for an American. In many ways you've equalized schooling expenditure with much greater degree than what we see in the United States. In many ways you have a healthcare system that's far more generous than anything we have in the United States. We're moving in that direction, but it's still the case that in terms of many social services, Denmark is way ahead of the United States and yet we still see inequality. So what this is is a very useful exercise at least for this America and I hope other Americans as well to understand well if we can sort of equalize these things between Denmark and the US and say well we can eliminate and we still find inequality, we eliminate then we have to look maybe elsewhere or have to understand more deeply. And I would just reinforce what Rasmus is saying. I mean the greatest danger in social policy is to start addressing a problem based on a correlation. That's taken the world down many bad trails and we definitely want to avoid that. So we really are trying to investigate why these origin, what's the origin and what if anything can be done. I would say when Rasmus was talking about the genetic explanation, the reason why he mentioned it and the reason why we even put it on the table is that 100 years ago, if you had looked at those gaps, the social Darwinist explanation would have been dumb kids are born to dumb parents and the relationships that we saw between education of the mother and education of the child and outcome of the child is simply genetic. And of course, there is a genetic basis and that's being investigated and with new data, very rich data, some of the very exciting projects being done here at ARHOS. But nonetheless, there's a huge role for home environment and here I want to talk about what we know in the United States and what has been investigated around the world. And so we know and then we are continuing to learn about the various channels of family influence and by family I mean more also than just the immediate parents. It's the neighborhood, the environment, the community and of course, public policies. So we have many of these different channels if you look at them, parental investments, of course the heritability component, public policies, schooling, neighborhood and peers. So these influences of course have been on the table. We know that they're important but we haven't had and we're still now acquiring information about the quantitative importance and more importantly we're in the life cycle we can effectively intervene. So what we want to talk about today is some information about skill formation. So Carson was right, we're talking about skill formation but not just skill formation because we are going to get to things like the tax transfer policy, the incentives that are built into the welfare state, the incentives and the disincentives and what we can say. So I'm gonna present some American evidence and then hand back over to Rasmus on the Danish evidence. But let me just give you a couple of principles that have emerged from this literature. And this is a literature that has national and scope, international and scope I should say that we understand what's called the dynamics of skill formation and here I'm gonna get a little technical but it's very simple idea that I'm gonna say, there's two ideas, notions of complementarity and I mentioned social Darwinism a minute ago let me return to it. There's a phenomenon in social life and in fact in much of political economy when we look at economic evaluation of investments that we generally find very high returns for more capable people. That if you look for example in the United States who benefits the most from going to college? You'll find that the more able people cognitively and the more socially emotionally well equipped more motivated, more conscientious people generally have the highest economic return and social return to education. And so that's sometimes called the Matthew effect from the New Testament and the Bible to those who have more is given. There's a sense in which when we invest in more capable people we generally get bigger benefits. So that would suggest then wait a minute if we have a genetic or a notion that skills are formed at birth, a purely genetic explanation about how skills are formed, then we more or less should have a multi-class society and we should stratify society at birth. That was the policy of eugenics I would say 100, 115 years ago, 120 years ago or so. But on the other hand, so this is a fact people don't like to hear this fact but it is a fact. But then the question is, does this necessarily say that we should invest only in the most capable over the whole life cycle? And the answer depends where in the life cycle. And the change between 100 years ago and today is the fact that we no longer think that these skills even things like IQ, certainly aspects of personality and health, these whole vector that constitute life skills that these skills in fact are highly malleable. The role of the heritability is there but it's not fully determinative. And so the other part of the story is what's called dynamic complementarity. And that is the notion that if we invest today especially in young children who are known to be value malleable, young children are emerging. They're young, fluid, capable of many things. If we invest today in the early years we get a huge return downstream. Why? Precisely because of this effect of static complementarity. By raising the base and making the children more capable in the early years and where the investment returns are quite high. Anyway, I'll show you how high in a minute. What we do is we increase the productivity of investment downstream in the life cycle. So it's that life cycle dynamics that is really the new ingredient here. So our understanding of ability and abilities, what they are, how important they are and how malleable they are especially in the early years is extremely important. And so we have both the static complementarity and the dynamic complementarity and there's no necessary contradiction. The early years are essentially creating the skill base that make it better and make better or later investments. And it's also the case that young people are far more malleable than old people. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, you can but it's harder to do so. And so we have to really understand something which neuroscience, developmental psychology, many different sources of knowledge, many different fields have converged to the importance of understanding the early years and the malleability of the early years. And so one notion here is that skills beget skills. And it's not just that they passively beget skills that the early years essentially create. And these skills are multiple in nature, social and emotional skills, sometimes called soft skills. Health, very important and also producing cognitive skills. Unhealthy children, missed school, can't concentrate, poor diet. There's even now a microbiome basis for understanding how cognition can be stimulated and of course cognitive skill creates greater understanding of health practices. So we have now a deeper understanding of this vector of skills and the fact that they can be shaped. And so here's a curve with which I'm associated and I'll just explain the logic of this curve. It captures this idea of static and dynamic complementarity. So if you look at it, you can see that in the earliest years you get a very high return. It's a thought experiment that I'm making here. And that is in the very early years precisely because it creates the base for all subsequent investment and makes later investments so productive. Precisely because of that, what I call static complementarity, later on in life. That actually it turns out that you get the highest return because it percolates over the rest of the life cycle. It builds the base that makes the next step and the next step and the next step more productive. It's not to say the job training or schooling are ineffective in any fundamental sense. But what it is to say if you have a unit, first unit of value to be invested, that the earliest years would have the highest return precisely because they are producing the base for everything that follows. And so that's the logic of this diagram. A hypothetical experiment. And let me give you some of the evidence about this. And let me make a point though, which I think is on the agenda now in Denmark. At least this is my perception. Rasmus can correct me. In fact, this is really Rasmus' slide, but I will use it anyway in the interest of continuity. And that is, I think many people would agree that early childhood investment leads to better outcomes. In fact, your preschool system and your schooling system in the early years is far better developed than anything we have in the United States. It's a model. That's what Hillary Clinton was often extolling in her, not just in her presidential run, but for many years before. People understand that in Denmark and it's on the public agenda. It's embodied in public policy. But there's a second point which is that Denmark does invest heavily in education. You can see this graph by this table I put up earlier. And therefore, it must be the case that Denmark has higher mobility because Denmark invest heavily. And that doesn't follow. And you just saw that we just showed you that in fact, there is a substantial, some notion that family background plays a huge role. So we wanna really understand the mechanisms. And here I'm gonna review some lessons from interventions around the world, not just in the United States, but predominantly in the United States. We have data now from Jamaica, from India, from Columbia, as well as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. So what we understand, and we've come to understand, and this is something that is really basic to our evaluation of public policy, that much of the early work on schooling and understanding schooling talked about test scores, achievement test scores, PISA scores. OECD has pushed PISA in the last 20 years. And if you go to China, I go to Shanghai, everybody in China is boasting about the great Shanghai test scores on PISA. That's give you the mark. The whole books are written about test scores and national progress. But what we've come to understand is that these test scores measure only a tiny fraction of the skills required for success in life. Now I'll give you an example of this. There's a project that I've been working on for the last 10 years or so. I actually started out as a passive observer. Right now I'm actually analyzing data on individuals from the so-called Perry Preschool Project who are now in their mid-50s. So we've actually followed people in this intervention program for the last 50 years or so. The program was targeted to disadvantaged children. And a recurrent theme, by the way, of these evaluations, of these studies has been that the most effective programs are those that target disadvantage. And this is a recurrent theme. But nonetheless, this program targets disadvantaged children. What's interesting about it is the kids were enrolled on the basis of having low IQ scores and having a family socioeconomic status that was quite low. Many of them were single-parent families. However, this study was randomly, was evaluated by a randomized controlled trial. And so participation was determined by the toss of a coin. That was in 1962. And we followed these kids ever since. And so the program itself starts at age three. It lasts two years and it's fairly modest in terms of about two and a half hours a day during the school year. But the key idea was really having a program that supported children's cognitive and social and emotional development. So there was a lot of interaction. And the key, I think, to the program is that children and the childcare workers interacted closely. There was interaction with the parents. And the children were encouraged, not just to learn how to do math or learn how to read, but they learned how to carry out tasks, to plan tasks, to review tasks, and then to collectively work together on various projects. And these were followed over many years, as I said. And so it starts at age three. And if you look at this, and we follow these people into adulthood, we can actually compute an economic rate of return. This is after tax. So this is the way a good economist would do a good cost-benefit analysis. So taking a public program, saying yes, when you raise taxes, you distort incentives, you get less work effort, all that's true, allow for all those distortions, and you still get a 10% rate of return per annum, which is higher than the US stock market between 1946 and say 2008 or so. And if you look at what the actual outcomes were in this treatment, you can see that if you looked at the IQ scores, the IQ scores of the children in the treatment group rose enormously. And in the 1960s, when cognitive psychology was at its high point, and everybody said, ah, you know, the be all and end all is cognition, just notion of IQ, the first three years of the program reviewed as a wild success, okay? You can see that when children were six years old, their IQs in the treatment group much higher than the control group. But as you went out to age 10, there was no difference. And so by many standards, many people, people like Arthur Jensen, for example, but many others, made the remark that in fact these programs were failure. And the failure was precisely because it didn't boost IQ. And that was the goal, that was the sole goal of these programs. And yet, as I said, there was a very high rate of return. And what was the channel through which it produced its beneficial results? It produced its beneficial results through basically improved self-control, through less aggression, through children's better enhanced ability to stay on task and to work with others and to be motivated. And without going into all the details, the mechanism of success was that it promoted both on the part of parents and children, different expectations about what was possible. And this is true, every one of the programs that have been studied and where there's been a success, this has been observed as a byproduct. And not just a byproduct, probably the central reason for the success of the program. The children felt they were better able to belong to school, things they can change things. If you think about following plans, the ability to stay on task, to socialize with others, I won't get into the details of the treatment effects, but these social and emotional skill enhancements constitute the lion's share of the treatment effect. And more than that, then just essentially boosting the children's perceptions in adult life, it also boosts the home life. So what happens is that if you ask the question of the parents, one year into the program, do you believe, what is your belief in the importance of parenting on raising your child, the children in the treatment group, the red line here, are far stronger about their belief that they can do something about enhancing the lives of their own children. And if you look at warmth in the family, if you look at so-called authoritarianism, allowing the child, just forcing the child along a certain mold, much less of that. And so there really is substantial improvement in parental and child environments. And it's the latter, the parental environment, which frequently gets overlooked. The fact that we turn the parents on and they become engaged in the life of the child is probably the most important engine of this program. And it's something that gets neglected. We think of building centers, building schools, but the one lesson that's emerged from all activity is that parents are far more important than schools in educating children. It sounds contradictory, but in fact, a parent, a strong home life is the core of a successful educational program. Now I'll show you some interesting results. We just recently have analyzed the data on these same people at age 55. And so without going into great details, we actually do see effects on intelligence, add to 55. This is adult measures of intelligence. We see great enhancements in personality. I could bombard you with lots of statistics. But the other thing that's interesting too, though, and something completely unexpected was the benefit in health.  Now suddenly we're changing the home life. We're changing the way that children can control their own lives, think about what's possible, and also what the parents think is possible. That translates into health. How? I mean, you're not directly, Perry was not a direct health intervention. But through measures of self-control, through measures of following diet, exercise, understanding various risks, and avoiding those risks, then what you find is really an enhanced ability. So cortisol is a measure of stress. We know cholesterol. And across a number of items, even including in the United States context, participation with health insurance. And there are strong reductions in crime, stronger for females, by the way, than males, although the dollar value is greater for males, employment effects and the like. But what's something that people have forgotten, at least haven't been able to look at and hadn't realized, is that if we look at the children of the Perry children. So now these children are 55. They have children. We can ask how well do their parents do, their children do, compared to the children of those in the control group. And we can see across high school graduation, in terms of their health, in terms of their employment, participation in school, arrest, and many other dimensions. I won't go through that. You find substantial improvements. Those are the red bars here, you see. So that's above and beyond the gain that would be at the base. So there's another project. I won't bombard you with projects, but there was another project that started even earlier. And the reason why I mentioned this project is this project starts at eight weeks of birth, much more similar in some ways to when the Danish healthcare, the childcare system starts. And it's more full day. It's more full time. And it puts together features of a program which sometimes get neglected. It provides both childcare, enriched childcare, as well as stimulation. And so what it is, it's providing very rich environments for children. And there are some health checkups given. So it starts at eight weeks of birth. And one thing that's interesting is even though I showed you a fade out of IQ, at least through 21, for the Perry preschool children, for this group, when you start early enough, you can boost IQ. And it's a permanent boost. It lasts at least through the time we've met it. We're now following these people now until the mid-40s. They don't have those results today. They're being collected right now. But what you find is enhanced engagement, greater, stronger parenting practices, exactly like we saw with Perry. Positive effect on female behavior and mental health in the sense that women now can go back to school. A lot of these are high school dropouts. Mothers are high school dropouts. They can essentially go to school. They're mental health. They have higher earnings. And so it enhances the home environment. It enhances the nature of parenting. And it also reduces both child outcomes. So I won't go through their strong effects on IQ, lasting effects. Here's the health effect that I was mentioning though. We took physician visits of people in these healthcare programs at age 35. And if you look at measures of blood pressure, pre-hypertension, a cholesterol, precursors for things like diabetes, you find that the control group, trust me, the treatment group, as far I had the control group and generally statistically significant. And here we can look at substantial lifetime benefits across these different dimensions in terms of labor income of the mother, labor income of the child, reduction in the value of crime committed and the quality of life measured in health survey. And here when we include the cost of health, we get rates of return about 13 and almost 14% per annum. And the same kind of mechanisms that work for the sake of brevity, I won't go through all this, but in fact, parenting engagement. And there were no direct home visits. That's the other part that many people forget. When you think about parenting and improving parenting, many people say, oh, you need to go visit the parent. Well, maybe, but there was no visit of that sort. But what happened is the kids came home and they were highly energized. And as a result, the parents were energized to engage the parent. So let me, I guess I should turn this back to Rasmus and get back to Denmark, which we will in a second. But let me just talk about trying to distill what the lessons are about program effectiveness. I've already told you more or less, but I think what we found and what has been found is that if you strip down these programs to their essence, this is more of a conjecture than a formal proof. But I think it's a conjecture that is bearing fruit. It's been at least found in many other studies. If you ask, well, what's the most important ingredient in these early childhood programs, it seems that the most important ingredient is engaging the parents, getting the parents active. And so there's a study that was done in Jamaica some 20 years ago, 25 years ago now, 30 years ago actually, in the slums of Jamaica. And it consisted of one activity and one activity alone, sending visitors out to mothers in disadvantaged homes and teaching them how to engage effectively with their child. And what it did, what was the engagement? It consisted of having the kids and the mother make a drawing book, tell stories, engage each other. The home visitors came out one hour a month for about three, two or three years. That's all, that's the only engagement. And yet the parents were actively engaged. And if you see what it was, very cheap because, and low cost and effective. And in fact, right now I am implementing a version of this program. We have implemented, I should say a version of this program in Western China, in Gansu, one of the poorest areas of Western China, rural China, very poor. But this is a very sturdy type of program that gets at the essence, I think, of what's going on here in these programs. And it's cheap, easily replicated, and it gets to the vital ingredient of teacher of mother-child interaction. So huge effects, I won't go through all those. But what has been a consistent finding? If we look at school effectiveness now, not just looking at early childhood, if we look at school effectiveness, the University of Chicago has been engaged in a 25-year experiment about how to increase the quality of public schools in the United States. And here, a charter school was run as a prototype for what could be done. And there's something called the University Charter School. And here I'm just showing you that the dark bars are those of participants and the light bars, those of people who didn't participate. And these are studies through the fifth grade. But what was the central ingredient? It was mentoring. It was an enhanced form of parenting. Supplement in kids entered this elementary school at age four years and are followed very intensely. And if children fall behind, they're mentored and there's a huge effect. So, and this has been a theme, for example, of successful adolescent training programs and the like. And of course, we know that education has multiple advantages in terms of wages. But what isn't so well understood is the benefit of education. And we're talking about now college education or graduation of high school on reducing smoking and promoting health, reducing crime and voting behavior and self-esteem. So there are many, many, many components. So, I think what I would just point out is that virtually all of these successful programs end up working through enhancing this interaction between parent and child and so forth. There's a very successful program. But here I think we should return to Denmark now with this study, please, yes. Well, thank you. So, as Jim said, now we're gonna return to Denmark. And as we do in Denmark, it's mostly through public policies and mostly through public policies for everyone. So it's not a targeted program. It's a universal daycare for everyone. It's universal public school for everyone. It's a focus goal. So what is the role of public policies in Denmark? Well, we've just seen that quality interventions are high quality interventions that target the disadvantaged children that that has large effects, not only in the short run, but also in the longer run. But as Jim also said, there seems to be a disconnect between the level of expenses and what we think of as high quality interventions in Denmark early in life. And then the differences we see later in life. So the gaps, the gaps we saw by mothers education, for example, early on. So what can explain this disconnect? And many things can do. And he will list four examples. And this is, as Jim also said, actually a part of a longer research agenda where we try to address all these questions and we try to investigate them so we don't have the answers to them. And certainly there can be more. And it's not only us, it's also, for instance, the Troi Foundation, et cetera. So there are as many as basically investigating this. So the first challenge in terms of the large investment in Denmark is basically what Jim talked about, what you can call the Matthew effect. That we basically end up giving more to those who have most already. And what we mean by that is, say, for instance, that we make education free, which isn't Denmark. So that's one barrier that's down. So there's a huge public investment in that. But if we don't take the other barrier to education, for instance, like skill, and equate that, then just by that difference, we actually invest in the skillful. And by the gaps we saw earlier on, which group is it that has the highest skills? It's those from affluent backgrounds. So by that extent, we actually equalize access later on, but we fail to make skillful mission equal early on. So that's the first issue. The second issue is that we actually know very little about how parents respond to all these public investments. So for instance, my child and my children are in their daycare today. So that's just not something that's added on to my investment in them. Of course, I'm here today, so I'm not with them. It's actually a substitute. So what parents do as respond to what the public sector does is not fully understood. Say that we increase quality of what's going on in the daycares. Say that now they read more with their children. Do parents then say, well, that's good. I'm also going to read with my child now. Or do some parents say, well, that's good. Now I don't have to do it. Is it complementary substitutes? And is that different for different types of parents? Unless we know, it's hard to say exactly how public investments increase in quality early on for all how that's going to affect inequality and social mobility. And just to illustrate that there is a large difference between how parents behave with their children across different backgrounds. This figure shows basically time use from the Danish time use survey. So parents, time spent with children, child age one to five, by different educational categories.  So the light gray bars, the ones on the left y-axis, you can see that that's time spent on reading per day on average. And what you can see is that there's strong monotonic, actually gradient in terms of education, and time spent reading with their children. Or we can also look at all characters in general, that's the black bars on the right y-axis, and it's basically the same relationship. Of course, there's much more to parenting than just reading with your child, but this is just an illustration of the differences that we see. And unless we understand why do we see these differences and also how these differences are a response to what's going on elsewhere in the child's life, then it's hard to address, basically, the differences we see later in life. Then of course, as I said, what we have in Denmark is the universal system. So we tend to have sort of a one-size-fits-all. But what Jim talked about was really high quality investments and in particular high quality investments for the disadvantaged. But when we do the same for everyone, it's then high quality for everyone. It's that high quality is for the median child, for the least able child, or for the most able child. Certainly it's hard to imagine that high quality can be for everyone if we do the same for all. And that's a political question. So should we go away from unity or should we stick to unity? And how does that affect mobility? And finally, we have solving. So it's not random where people live. So where parents choose to live. But also where the most qualified pedagogues are teachers' work. So they're better schools than others. And certainly many parents look to that in terms of whether they live with their children. So now we're gonna look at some evidence for a couple of these points for Denmark. First, let's go back to where we started. The role of redistribution and income mobility. And just to give a very, very crude example of how that affects income mobility. So this figure shows the fraction of children that are doing better than their parents in terms of income. So who has an income level today that is higher than what their parents had when they were in equal age? Across parents' income distribution. So children who grew up in the poorest family, that's to the right, sorry, to the left. And children who grew up in the richest family, that's to the right. And what we see is children who grew up in the poorest family is both for those who were born in the 70s and 80s. Around 75% are actually doing better today than their parents were. And then if we go to the richest family, we see that almost none are doing better than their parents. So that's mean reversion. But there's a very, very large proportion that's doing better. But still, some, even from those from the poorest families, I actually have a lower income today than what their parents are. And this is, however, in terms of market income. So gross income excluding public transfers. So basically what you earn from jobs, from capital income, et cetera. So now we're gonna add transfer income. So one part of redistribution to this. And look how it changes in particular in the bottom. Actually, there's no change in the top. But the bottom, if you just jump back and forth, you can see it's basically lifted. So now almost all are doing better than the parents of the poor. So those who grow up in the lowest income families, they're all doing better today than the parents. And it's basically for a large proportion explained basically by redistribution. So redistribution is important and really important when you think of inequality and income ability. But what about skill formation and investment? And these challenges that talked about earlier on. There's, of course, a large literature that studies early lifetime intervention. And Jim talked about some of it. But when we think about the universal programs, the literature is much sparser. So it's summarized in a long good L. But I think that the prime example for Scandinavia is hardness and moisture. So they study the expansion of daycare. So from selected to universal in Norway in the 70s. And they look at the effects there. And I'm gonna show you an example of those just in a second. A recent study from Germany investigates the same things, and they find quite similar results. So I think that this table basically gives the main points from the Norwegian study. So what they do is they study what is the effect of having access to universal daycare on education down in the longer run. So in column one we see the average effect on education. Years of education increased by 0.35. So that amounts to roughly four months extra education by having access to daycare at age three and four. But what I want you to focus on is actually column four and five. So if you look at here, these are the effects by mothers education. So there are no effects for mothers or for children whose mothers have high school or higher. All the effects are driven for children whose mothers have low education. And this is really the notion that early lifetime investment can boost children skills. And it's particularly relevant for the disadvantaged children. And indeed, when we look at distribution of test scores or piece of test scores in Denmark, as Jim said, we see similar things. So this is the distribution of piece of test scores for Denmark, the light rate. And then the dark red is for the US. And what we basically can see is that the distribution is basically compressed. It's shifted upwards in Denmark. But so there's basically a large mass of low-skilled children in the US that are simply not there in Denmark. So there seems to be a large skill compression at the lower tail in Denmark, both when we look at math and when we look at reading. However, there are some challenges to this. Another challenge is basically who participates, because what we talked about now is access to universal data. But access is not the same as take-up. So what the German study, so Dusmann and Allergy finds is that, well, those who are least likely to participate are actually the ones who have the highest gains. Another way to say it is those who are least likely to participate are actually those with disadvantaged background. And it's the same problem we're discussing today, in particular when we're discussing the problem in terms of immigrants and their children, that those who have the highest gains are actually the ones who are least likely to participate. So, and that, again, would go down the Matthew fake rose. Then we would be giving more to those who have more in the beginning. So that's a serious problem. Nevertheless, when we look at Denmark and when we look at the expenditures, not only in levels, but also in terms of distributions. So this shows the expenditures per child in municipalities in Denmark. So that's a dashed figure. And then in the US, we see the distribution is just much, much tighter in Denmark and similar for schools. Yet, the gaps in family structures, well, they're quite similar. Okay, so now I'm gonna talk about three short things. The first is sorting. That's the first challenge I'm gonna talk about. Okay, so it's not random what people did. So now we're gonna look at sorting across the income level. So do rich people live together or do rich people live across all neighborhoods?  So zero is no sorting. One is sorting such that all the rich people live together and all the poor people live together. Okay, so basically what we're gonna look at is the trend. So this is the trend in where people live by the income percentile in 94, 2004 and 2014. So basically what we see is that in 2004 and 2004, the middle class were quite equally distributed across different neighborhoods. So this is for the greater Copenhagen area. So they were well represented across different neighborhoods. So poor people were concentrated to a larger degree and rich people in particular were also concentrated more. But what we see actually to 2014 is that there is an increased concentration of the poorest in the greater Copenhagen area. And this is actually a trend that resembles other countries. For instance, also a problem we see in the US. Of course the levels may be different than in the US, but this is an increasing problem. So it's not random where people live. It's not random who goes to the best schools and who don't. Okay, then we get to the trade-offs between the redistribution and then skill attainment. Of course, most people may know that the returns to education, the returns to skill are lower in Denmark. And so I'm not gonna go into detail about that. So this is most relevant for those who actually have the lowest levels of skills. In particular because the redistribution really kicks in there, down there. So that's where the returns to skills can be changed a lot. This figure shows uptake in social assistance around a 25 year cut-off. So until recently, social assistance increased by 55% when you turn 25. So now we see by age, the fraction that I enroll that take up social assistance and then by the education. So those who have compulsory schooling only are those who have high school or higher. And basically what you can see for those with a low education, that there is a strong jump in take up in social assistance the minute they turn 25. And this is even in equilibrium. So this is not a reform. So this is basically even that everyone can anticipate that they turn 25 at some point. We still see this last day's continuity. Whereas for those with higher education, we see nothing. And similar we can look at the fraction enrolled in education around the same cut-off. So for those with low education, we see that their education enrollment declines when social assistance goes up. Whereas for those with higher years of schooling, there's basically nothing. So there is a trade-off here. So we can't say how to balance that trade-off, but that trade-off certainly exists. So the last thing I'm gonna talk about is basically the Matthew effect. So who can utilize from the progress that they've seen from the increased availability of services and quality services. Okay, so just let's take a brief step back here. This figure shows educational ability, the education IDE that Jim started with in Denmark for all cohorts born from 1910 until today. So as we see for those born in pre-World War II, there's a strong educational dependency between generations. So educational mobility is low. Then there is a huge increase in educational ability for those born past World War II. So the cohorts born between 40 and 60. So the coefficient between parents and children's education decline. And that's really driven by the large expansion of education in the lower tail.  So a huge expansion, but what we see afterwards is that educational mobility declines and it declines rapidly again. And that's basically because educational attainment continues to increase, but it increases in the other tail. So now it's all the college degrees, university degrees, PhDs that are driving the increased educational attainment. And who gets the university degrees? Well, we actually started with that, right? So who gets the college degrees? It's basically this figure, right? That those who get college degrees by their parents' education, the relative difference is stable, but in absolute terms, it's actually increasing. So one group is running away from the other group. And this trickles down the system in terms of how we think of inequality and mobility. So the last thing I'm gonna say is basically, if we look at education support. So this is, I guess, a prime example of where we think that we actually pay into those who are in need. But this basically shows the black part here, what amount you get in education support, totally from 18 to 25 by your parents' income percentile. And what we see is those who get most, actually those from the richest percent. Everyone from the 60th percent on downward get less than half than the richest percent on average. So this is actually a reverse redistribution in terms of education support. So because I think that the core and actually going back to Carsten's presentation, that in many of these aspects, there are trade-offs and there are political trade-offs, there are subjective trade-offs. So that can be more than one truth. So inequality is really at the core of many political debates. So we can't say what the right level of redistribution are as researchers. They're ambiguous and there's objective meanings about that. Of course we can highlight which trade-offs there are, but others have to decide on what the right trade-off, how they should be balanced. However, there are some things that are not subjective. That equality of opportunity in all of life aspects, that that basically requires that the fostering of skill formation is equal for all. And that's basically the point. And I guess that I used my time and more. Thank you for your time.


what's up guys I've been wanting to do this video for a long time today I'm gonna break down exactly why you don't need a high-pressure expensive real estate coach to sell millions dollars in property and no I'm not trying to sell you one of my courses all my training is completely free check the link in the description and to tell you the truth there are no secrets in real estate everything's already out there on YouTube why would anyone charge for it so why am I coaching and sharing all my real estate secrets for absolutely free well for one like I said everything's already out there anyway on YouTube and other platforms but most importantly I want you guys to trust me that I'm telling you exactly everything that I know I don't want you guys to feel like there's any ulterior motive or that I'm leaving something out just so that you can pay me later for it and I'm not trying to say that all real estate coaches are bad there's a lot of great real estate coaches in the industry what I'm saying is is you got to quit chasing the shiny penny and trying to find that magic pill that's going to take your business from zero to a million overnight and start putting in the work and I'm not talking about social media or Zillow I'm not even talking about calling for sale banners and expireds and handling objections guess what you don't need that stuff to get to the top some people are super successful doing it this way but there are other options so who the heck am I well I'm a 16 year real estate agent and investor and here's why you should listen to this I've sold over a hundred properties for going on five years in a row as a single agent and the way that I've decided to build my business which you can easily replicate I know that my business will continue to grow during a market downturn I get it real estate is tough to get started it took me eight months to make my first sale and 87% of real estate agents do not make it in this business that's why the real estate coaching industry is so big there's so many struggling agents that are desperate to succeed and are willing to do anything they have to to try to create that success including pay money most of these agents are struggling so much that they're an easy target to take advantage of problem I see with mainstream real estate coaching and what I want to bring to the surface in this video is the fact that most real estate coaches are trying to get you to judge your entire business on how many appointments how many listings how many closings you're getting when in reality for me that's only a really small piece of the puzzle you see what I want to know is is how many property owners are you communicating with voice-to-voice on a daily basis and how many of those are you connecting with long-term I think that we should be developing our people skills in terms of how we can communicate who we are as a person that we care about people and want to do right by people and how hard-working honest and dependable we are as opposed to how to handle objections and make people sign the line I think that every single prospect is worth 10 to 20 deals to us over the course of our career and it's up to us to develop those relationships I feel like the closings are happening every day so if you're talking to enough people you're going to run into people that want to buy or sell today as well as develop your business for that long-term huge growth see if you follow mainstream real estate coaching and you handle objections and try to go after the deal what happens is is that you're not lining up who you are as a person with how you're communicating to your prospects when you're a new agent you're basically a blank slate you know nothing about the business or how to succeed so you search for information you search for the answers and the first couple two or three or four inches you run into you absorb those answers and they become part of your arsenal so you have to be careful where you find those answers and who you're listening to I personally don't feel like handling objections and high pressure selling for sell-by-owners and expires is the best route to go I believe in creating lifelong relationships with your clients as in how can I help you instead of trying to force them into some kind of awkward situation that they don't want to be involved in I think that most agents have very good intentions they care about clients they care about people they want to help they want to do the right thing they'll go over the top to help people but the way that they've been trained is to go after the deal is to close the sale is to go after the appointment is to get the listing and I think that that doesn't build relationships I don't think that that's a good way to start a relationship out handling objections and trying to get everything to turn into a deal I think finding out why someone wants to buy a sale and what their personal time frame is on when they would like to do that is far more important than trying to get them to sign a contract today so let's break down the three reasons why someone would hire a real estate coach or really any coach I believe the first reason is as fundamentals they want to know what to do they don't know what to do so they need to know the actual details of what actions they need to take to create business and to reach their goals the second reason is accountability maybe you know what to do but you're just not accountable to yourself you need someone to keep you accountable to make sure you do those daily actions every single day when you're supposed to do them exactly how you're supposed to do them so you know what to do you're just not count accountable to yourself and the third reason is mindset maybe you know what to do maybe you're accountable for yourself but maybe something going on in your mind is holding you back for example I made 600,000 in 2014 I wanted to make a million in 2015 I made this really good plan to make that million by the time March rolled around it looked like I was still on track to make another 600,000 and it became very depressed so I went out and got a coach I hired a coach to help me I thought for fundamentals I was doing something wrong well come to find out I was doing everything right but there was something going on in my mind I had to get right and at the end of the day what I realized is that you have to be happy with where you are and content but still hungry for more right if you're always trying to chase that carrot and that carrot keeps moving and you can't quite get to your goal because you're always moving your goal up every time you get close you move it a little further you'll stay in a state of depression because you'll never really reach your goals and that's good and bad it's good because you're motivated it's bad because it's a dangerous place to be when you're depressed as a successful person the flip side of that is you're satisfied with where you are but you're not hungry to keep trying and pushing and moving forward so be happy but not content my entire goal was there to diamonds to reduce the failure rate in the real estate industry and I believe I can do that if I can get two things inside of all new agents mind one is is that if you eliminate all your fears of real estate markets crashing losing deals fear of the phone all your fears are actually great opportunities and the moment you realize this is the moment you realize that everything in real estate is a win-win there's no way to lose in real estate unless you just quit even when the market crashes you can make more money which I'll do a video on later to explain if you're a new agent you have some huge fear that you can't get over please comment below what it is and I would love to show you where the opportunity lies within that fear and the second thing I'd love to get into all new agents head is that losing deals are one of the greatest opportunities out there for real estate agents for one you had the opportunity to do the deal and you should be grateful for it was never your deal in the first place you do not own that property that buyer does not have to buy through you these are all other people's decisions for them to make it's all out of your control you have to do the best you can to make it work and if it doesn't work that's okay because you have other deals to do the business is completely unlimited the second thing you get out of losing deals is the fact that you learn something why the deal didn't work and that is slowly deal by deal molding you into a better and better agent and the third most important thing about losing deals is the future time you get back that you don't have to spend on that deal anymore that is the most amazing part of losing deals you can take that future time and go call more people contact more people and do more deals I just want to share with the real estate world that everything in this business is a win-win you can't succeed it is simple you just have to put in the work which means making contact with enough people coming from a place of how can I help you and having a system to follow up and stay in touch for the rest of their life I appreciate your time I hope you got something out of this video hit the subscribe button and watch some of my other videos to get some more ideas and we'll talk to you guys soon


Hi George Cal here, and I have a new group coaching program starting soon and just want to tell you a little bit about it Do you ever get to the computer wonder what is the most important thing? I should be doing right now that will help move my business forward so if you have sometimes a struggle with prioritizing the most effective things for your business number one or number two if you have any struggle with regards to Consistency showing up on a consistent basis whether it's to create content or to launch your offerings or do any kind of outreach That's what this new program does. It helps with your priorities and helps you your consistency So every week you're gonna get coaching in a group with me live coaching And I'll be able to answer your questions specifically about your situation as well So we'll take baby steps every week in a group and I'm really looking forward to supporting you if that sounds amazing to you There should be a link in my bio or message me for the link


Hey, good morning everyone. Welcome to Tuesday tea with Leigh Ann. So glad that you could join us today Things look a little bit different as far as my little broadcast setup here as I've just obtained a stream yard So stream yard is the platform that you can use to stream video like this to Multiple platforms and so that is what I'm doing right now is I'm streaming to My Facebook page my Facebook group and my YouTube channel So it's an experiment of course and who knows I might decide in time that this isn't the right tool for me but so far the experience on my end the I Guess the administration experience has been beautiful and I'm quite enjoying it so far But we'll see time. We'll tell if this is something that I hang on to So it's a little bit of Weather report from Kelowna, BC today, so I'm located in Kelowna, BC, which is about four hours East of Vancouver and we our winters tend to be very mild Temperatures hovering around, you know minus five to plus five degrees Celsius So around the 32 mark for the American friends, but today it's minus 15. It's sunny It's beautiful, but it is minus 15. So I Kind of want to punch myself in the face because as a I lived, you know, most of my adult Childhood and adult life in Alberta where you know minus 25 minus 30 was a regular Winter experience and now at minus 15. I'm I'm complaining so I think I've gotten soft in my old age and definitely soft in the five years that we've lived here Because it's I feel like it's bitter cold today, but it's not so yes, my Ottawa friends and my Alberta friends I'm sure you're rolling your eyes at me and with good reason because you're right It's not that cold here, but it sure feels cold for For us who live here and don't usually get these kinds of temperatures So a lot has been happening Over in my business the last couple weeks. I've been doing some speaking engagements, which has been Fantastic and really enjoying it Most of my speaking engagements right now are on LinkedIn, which is what we're going to talk about today So it's kind of been a LinkedIn week But didn't want the other social media platforms to feel left out So I'm also working on some Facebook stuff trying to learn Facebook ads Don't know if you've ever had experience with Facebook ads if you have I would love to hear your experience because It's a bear and I'm not enjoying it But I'm going to I am going to master Facebook ads by the end of this calendar year And I'm going to know enough to be dangerous through February and through March So that is definitely one of my big bucket goals But like I said, most of my training has been around LinkedIn and just Coincidentally today we're talking a lot about LinkedIn It's a LinkedIn month over here at Leanne Calderwood comm we have the LinkedIn challenge, which is a Five-day challenge that starts on each Monday in February where you can Challenge yourself to increase your network by 50 connections by the end of the week and each day of the week You're given a different task in the challenge and you're off to the races And then my blog posts have all been around the LinkedIn theme and what we're talking about today It's probably the mediest of all the blog posts and it's about how you can engage with the platform LinkedIn has 760 million users now it just keeps on jumping up and up and up But of those 760 users only really three million of them are active on a Monthly basis, which is a really low amount Which is really unfortunate because there's so much value in the platform and I feel if someone was Created some intentional time on the platform and went into the platform with a bit more of a strategy I think they would see the value return to them, especially if you're in a B2B Space so that's what I wanted to talk about today Was really to compound on the blog posts that I launched last week about how to build your personal brand on LinkedIn and there's 10 different ways that you can do it. So I'm I'm going to kind of jump into the 10 ways and Would welcome your comments if you've tried these things if you've tried these strategies and They've worked out for you in increasing your LinkedIn presence So the first one and probably the most important one is to complete your LinkedIn profile whatever activity you do on LinkedIn The person who sees your engagement is going to check you out And it's not cyber stocking. This is what's done on this professional looking platform But in checking you out you need to ensure that they have something to read And something to look at so if you haven't taken time to complete your LinkedIn profile That that could be one of your goals for this quarter is to take some time and to update your LinkedIn profile The second thing that you can do obviously to build your brand is to start engaging by creating content So on your home feed, obviously, there's a few ways that you can do it. You can create content With either just the written word or with an image or with a short video all of them seem to have Their time in their place But certainly anything with images and videos will get more attention then post that that lack those two components and Remember these don't need to be professionally edited photos or edited videos by any stretch of the mean People are looking for authenticity, but they're also looking for that visual engagement along with your written work So start to your hand at posting on a regular basis LinkedIn it's it's recommended that you post no more than five times a week on LinkedIn on your personal profile So it's different from Twitter in that way where you can vote post, you know, five or ten times a day Unlinked in the algorithm will favor five times a week so once a day once a business day is is typically the The consistency that I would suggest starting with now If once a day is is just too much of a task right now, especially if you're just starting out My key piece of advice would be just be consistent And if that means right now for you to post once a week Then start for once a week go for a couple months See if you're still able to keep the schedule of once a week and maybe at that time you want to re-evaluate and add Another post per week So posting content obviously and posting on a regular basis again Not every single day, but on a consistent regular basis will help build your brand on LinkedIn There's also the LinkedIn messaging feature which is on the top bar again And that's when you can connect with other people in your network or maybe people outside your network and While the messaging feature is obviously a lot clunkier than your outlook or your Gmail It's a great place to start conversations with Network connections that you want to further the relationship with I kind of look at LinkedIn Messaging's goal as that's where you want to start the relationship But the goal of that message is to eventually pull it off of LinkedIn and pull it into your own email service Email service like outlook or Gmail so the relationships start on LinkedIn But again the goal of the relationship is to pull it out of messaging and put it on to your outlook or Gmail where you can Message more freely there and of course keep track of your messages Better because LinkedIn messaging is is terribly clunky There's also a Content feature on LinkedIn Called LinkedIn articles so when you have the option to post on the home feed It will ask you if you're going to post or if you'd prefer to just do an image or a video And then there's an option to write an article and these are the long-form articles So consider LinkedIn articles as a blog platform This is where you can you know spew off 400 words all the way up to however long you can I don't even know the limit actually LinkedIn articles I can look into that But I think the longest article I did on there was roughly around 15 to 2000 words and and there was no issue You can also insert images and videos in that long-form article And then you have the opportunity to provide a bit of an intro or an update to the article as you post it to your network So the article feature again is a commitment If you can do one article a month and again the goal is to stay consistent That's something that would definitely grow your brand on LinkedIn And here's one of my little backdoor strategies with articles Is if you write a really great compelling article on LinkedIn You can feature that in your featured section, which is on your profile So the featured section falls right below the about section Not everyone has the featured section But if you have the featured section you can create one of your features as Your linked in article so there's the little hack about if you write a blog article It can live not only in your activity, but it can live in your featured section Which when people visit your profile, they'll see that you've created this article and they may take a read of it So that's a really compelling one really great Tool in your toolbox for growing your personal brand and getting eyes on your content The other way you can grow your brand is to jump into groups Another very clunky feature of LinkedIn is LinkedIn groups It's not the most well laid out feature of LinkedIn for sure And there are not a ton of people providing valuable insights in groups But if you find the right group and there's actual Valuable content in there Jump in get engaged see who else is Creating and providing great insights and content and start to build your network inside of groups Again, it's a great way to build your brand because you can provide value in groups the the rule of groups though is to stay away from Self promotion and of course spam Um, so if you can follow those rules everything else you can post discussion questions. You can post Tips and tricks best practices Uh, you can look for advice on certain things So there's a lot of things that you can do inside of a Facebook or a LinkedIn group. Sorry Um to build your brand just got to find the right group where there's some engagement there um All right, so we are on to number seven already and another rarely used feature are hashtags So including some hashtags in your content and following discussions Discussion topics through hashtags is a great way to get industry intel It's a great way to learn who's talking about those Topics You'll need to do some research when you start getting into hashtags to see what hashtags people are actually following And you can use the search bar to do that research and and find out how many people are following different hashtags And use different variations of a hashtag In fact, the other day I was doing um some filming for a course. I'm launching And the example was administrative assistance And so I was doing some hashtag research around Administrative assistance and I was finding that administrative professionals was actually the more popular hashtag Literally by tens of thousands of people So take some variations of different hashtags that you'd be looking for and and see which one's pop-up is being more popular than others um The eighth tip is to ensure that you go into your settings and set your profile to full and public I I believe There was a misconception back in the day that LinkedIn was Not a platform where you invited everyone into your world similar to Facebook. And so a lot of us have settings um blocking people from seeing our last name or even blocking people from seeing our profile picture But linkedin is so so different from Facebook and instagram because it is the business platform And if you're growing your brand you obviously want to invite people into your business world So ensure that your settings allow for that and if you haven't checked out your settings in a while It might be time just to ensure that they are set to full Um, in fact, I've seen some incredible brands on linkedin But I couldn't see their profile picture and it checked me forever to figure out why they were doing such great video But didn't have a profile picture up on their profile So I finally brought it to their attention that that is that was what was happening So that they could change their settings um The ninth thing that you can do is obviously to grow your network through connections And of course the more connections you have the more intentional connections you have The more eyes you'll have on your content And those people obviously can engage with your content and um It it just opens doors to opportunities as of course they see you continuing to promote your brand and promote valuable content on linkedin I mentioned the five days to 50 connections challenge uh, there's a Bunch of people going through it right now and hopefully some more Go for it next week next week is the last week of the challenge And then i'm going to retire the challenge for the season So if you're interested in growing your connections five days to 50 linkedin connections challenge You can find more information about that over at leanne calderwood.com forward slash challenge And you can get ready for next monday's challenge Uh, the last tip I want to leave you with today and to be honest. This is my favorite Is to continually update your profile And you can update a few sections in a few different ways that keep it fresh Keep it visually engaging for those who visit your profile and always give something someone something new to read And there's three areas that I think you can do this Uh regularly and that is your banner. So the banner is the big block behind your head On your linkedin profile Creating visuals are creating calls to action on your banner including once we get back to attending conferences and speaking at conferences Putting those things in a banner is a great visual hook for people Uh, the second place is your headline, which is kind of that that prominent statement right below your name You can update that as well I used to update it when I was attending conferences and letting people know what cities or what I was going to be at and I I look forward to doing that again some day And of course the third thing is your featured section. So that's that Roll a dex of different things that you want to feature about your work and your brand I mentioned that you could tag one of your articles as part of your featured section But you also may want to tag some videos that you've created Other websites, maybe a pdf that you've created or a pdf about your business So capitalizing on your featured section and keeping content rolling through that little carousel of featured content Is a great way to keep your up your content and your profile continually fresh through those updates So those are 10 very quick ways that you can capitalize on your brand Using linkedin next week. We're going to talk a little bit about linkedin groups I mentioned linkedin groups today. It is a clunky clunky feature But I think there's some things that we can all try to capitalize on linkedin groups and so we're going to look at that next week Thank you for joining today's broadcast if you have any questions at all Certainly, let me know through the the facebook or youtube comments And I do hope to see you next tuesday for t same time same place. Bye for now


Here we are back out here in Berg Street, Mall, Melbourne. We've got a sign that says, if you're not vegan, you abuse animals. Prove me wrong. We're going to see if the public can prove me wrong. Come on. Come on, come and tell it to me. Hello. Hi. What's your name? Anne. Hello, Anne. So, I'm honestly, because I'm an animal lover.  Yes.  I don't do a lot of things that involve cruelty to animals. But what do you do when you just need that little bit of meat? Like, can you be a flexitarian? Okay. Like, once a week. First of all, do you agree what I've said on the sign? Yes. What does it say on the sign? Look, I don't see any animals, but there wouldn't be farmed animals if people didn't eat them. A lot of animals wouldn't exist. Yeah. Do you think that if you're not vegan, you abuse animals? You do. Indirectly, you do. Yes, you do. Yeah, like, you pay for someone to abuse animals for you. Just because you don't see it, you do it. I know. But how about if you just moderate and cut down? Okay. What do you think this is? Do you think this is okay? I'm sorry. That's babed. I'm sorry. This is standard practice in the pork industry to mutilate the pigs like that, though, so they don't bite their tails. And they can eat the lambs, too. And they can eat the lambs, too. Okay. Do you think a little bit of this is okay? No. But don't you think it's better than the amount of meat I used to eat, just eating a little bit? He's only a little bit dead. Well, no, don't say that. Yes. He has a little bit of a bolt gun in his skull. Oh, look. Look, they're shooting him. See now? That's right. There you go.  I watched that on purpose to turn me off, on purpose, because you can't be blinded. Look what they do. That's a dairy cow. Yeah, but where is that being done? Australia. This is Australia. This is standard.  Go vegan. She had a good reaction.  What did you think of this? What's your name, mate? I'm Patrick. You're being filmed, is that cool? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. One second. What did you think of the sign? Of the sign? Yeah. Do you agree with that? No, obviously not. Why, obviously? Because you don't directly abuse animals, but it's an interesting topic, yeah. I agree with it somewhat. You do? Yeah. So when you pay someone to stab an animal on the throat for your steak, do you think that's abuse? I don't think it's abuse. I think it's fueling an industry that shouldn't be supported anymore. Okay. But it's not directly abusing animals. Well, I didn't say directly. Well, let's put it this way. Let's just say I paid my friend to bash you. That's a good point. But I had the problem with you. My friend didn't, right? Yeah. He's neutral. Why vegan, though? It's interesting that it's vegan. Yeah. Well, because this is the dairy industry. Yeah. Okay. This is horrific abuse. This is just them being milked, but which is, I feel like it's slavery, which it is slavery. And these are bobby calves being murdered because they don't produce milk. What do you think that is? Do you think that's abuse? Yeah. Yeah. This is the babies being taken because, you know, they don't want them to drink the milk that we drink. Well, that, not me, that you guys drink. Yeah. It's interesting because I come from the country. Yeah. I study environmental science. Yeah. And I mean, I was an intern and now on the marketing for a social enterprise, which is not fighting this specifically, but sustainable development. So you've put me on the spot. Well, let's just talk about your personal contribution to this violence. Oh, I, well, I, yeah, I do contribute to it when I buy meat, don't I? Yeah. So you're contributing to animal abuse when you buy meat? Yes. So unless you're vegan, you abuse animals? No, not necessarily. You don't have to be vegan. Well, wait a second. If you're not vegan, you purchase these products that abuse animals. Not all products are produced this way though. Yeah. But wait a second. What is your definition of abuse? That's where we're getting stuck here. I'm not arguing against the fact that they're abused. Wait a second. How do you do this without abusing someone? I don't know. Where have we gone? I think to say I'm buying a meat means I'm abusing animals is too direct. It's an indirect. It's indirect abuse of animals. So it's abuse of animals? Yes.  I'm paying someone to enslave the woman. I'm paying him. He's enslaving her. He's a neutral person. He needs money. Like, look, he'd prefer not to. You know, these people in these slaughterhouses prefer not to. Yes. I'm paying them to work in these slaughterhouses and abuse animals. Who's the animal abuser? I agree. I think agriculture is something that's going to, in the future, one day, be obsolete. And we're going to see a massive shift. I get it. I get it. But we're going off the rails here. You're talking about the future. I want to talk about your direct involvement in this abuse. Is this sign incorrect now that you're following the logic? I want you to be responsible. Oh, yeah, definitely. I want you to feel accountable. 100%, 100%. Yes, I am accountable. Yeah. Yes.  Yeah, well, you know abuse is exploitation and use. So if I was to use you without your consent, I'd be abusing you. Yeah. No matter if I did it humanely.  Yeah. It's your flesh. When I think about the agriculture industry, I don't necessarily think about this side of it. I'm also thinking about the environmental impact it has. This has got nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with the animal's rights being taken away from them and their bodies being exploited. Okay. That's what veganism is. It's to do with animal rights. Okay. All right. I always look at it from an environmental aspect. Why? You don't care about them? Well, I do care about them being abused. But what if I was to say to you the slave ships that took all the people from one country to another to be enslaved? What if I said that those slave ships would cause some environmental impact? What would that be like? What did you think of me? Oh, terrible. You think I was a terrible person? No, yeah. I think when you talk about humans. You think I was a terrible person if I thought that concentration camps caused an environmental impact. That's why we should shut them. Yes. Okay. So should I think you're a terrible person? We're talking about the environment when animals have been raped and killed. I don't think it takes a terrible person to fuel it. I think the times are changing. You are seeing a shift in the agricultural industry. Why is it changing?  Yeah, definitely. I think this is half of it. And the other half is what I've been speaking about, the environmental side of everything, yeah. Well, for these animals, this is the brunt of it. Yes. I'm an animal person. I'm speaking from the animal's position. Yep. And if you were in that position, I'd be fighting for you too, bro. Yeah, definitely. And what if someone said, well, let's say you're suffering in this slaughterhouse. Put yourself in their position. It's a hypothetical. And someone would just say, oh, we should stop this because the environment, though. Yeah. Good point. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I've never seen one of these documentaries. I've never really looked into it. And it's also one of those things where you grow up. It just being normal.  I used to eat steak all the time too, man. Yeah. Exactly. And not that I think it's okay. Or that I'm not trying to give anyone any leeway here either. What I was doing was abusive and cruel and wrong. Yes. Yeah, definitely. And it's, it's, it's like what you said, it's about the awareness and learning what actually is happening. So this here, like, look, we've got our footage. This is what's going on. This is standard practice across the board. These are downers. And this is Australian industry. Okay. I've worked in an avatar. Yeah. So you've seen the blood, the violence that, you know, talk to people on the kill floor. They don't like it. Oh, I was, there was the most depressed part of my life. I wasn't on the kill floor. I was in the loadout. But yeah, I had to deal with all the caucuses. Yeah. So as hard as it was for you, how much harder was it for them, the animals? Well, it's supposedly pain, painless. But I haven't looked into it. I don't know. I don't know the specifics. Is that in the human context? Probably. Yeah. It's painless.  Okay. But we wouldn't do that because it's a right violation. Okay. Ethical concerns. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with you. The environment is a, look, it's not a non-issue. It's not, it's got nothing to do with the issue of animal rights. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And veganism. Okay. Yeah. So when we talk about veganism, we're talking about this. Okay. All right. That's something I didn't know. I thought it was just completely cutting meat out of your diet, which- It's about animal exploitation. Okay. Yeah. I think meat's just not necessary for owner diets anymore. Like, we can get the nutrition in other ways. It's not- It's horrible. Without this. Without destroying the planet. Without everything negative that comes with this. However, you're going to see people go out of jobs. And that's another topic. What's worse? Yes, obviously. Obviously, like, if we make a shift, we're going to be creating other jobs at the same time with- Time-based innovations. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. They're not going to be destroying our environment and murdering and exploiting and subjugating the innocent beings, which is our focus. Yes. Yeah. Nice to meet you, mate. Cheers.  Okay. Yeah, definitely. Have you seen the vertical towers of vertical crops they call it? Yeah. Have you seen them? Really good. They take up less land and less crop deaths and all those sort of things, which we all should be concerned about. But when I'm talking about this, it kind of feels like an injustice to talk about the environment. Like I said in this, if you were enslaved, I wouldn't talk about the environment. I'd be trying to free you. Yeah. Yeah, I get you. But another thing, if these weren't being bred, they wouldn't have life anyway. Yeah. Apply it in the human context. Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty sick, isn't it? Yeah. I gave you life. I gave my children life.  Now stop here, mate. Take care. Hey, hello, worries. There are people out there who are for the death panel, but she says, if you in your mind cannot say for certain, I would pull the trigger, I would inject them. So there's something in your heart that is not fully committed. And that's why you think about veganism from that premise. Well, because the only reason I can eat meat is because it doesn't look like an animal. If I had to go out and actually murder the cow or murder the chicken, I couldn't do it. Very strong point. So that to me sort of, it feels quite like a similar point. Well, let's just say, let me put this to you.  No.  Yeah, you're complicitive. Yeah. Yeah, so that's something that's better. Do you agree with the sign, by the way? I know, it seems a bit harsh. Truth is harsh, isn't it? Well, that is true. The truth is... Let's follow it logically. Like, what do you consider abuse? Exploitation use? Yeah. Taking away someone's children, breeding them, putting them in pens? I really want to look at that. Gas chambers? Yeah. Yeah.  Oh, absolutely. If you don't do something to stop it, then you're accepting it and going along with it and saying this. Well, maybe that's an activism argument, like if you're directly trying to stop it, but you're actually causing it. We can talk about being neutral, which is being vegan, not causing it. And then we can talk about activism, which is trying to stop it. This is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to stop it. But just, you're actively paying for them to be abused, which is why I say, if you're not vegan, you're abusing animals. Yeah. Well, that makes sense because you are, as long as you don't have to see it, then you don't think about it. You have a good heart. Conscious. But I did wonder about cows with veganism, because vegans obviously don't drink milk. But if cows aren't milked, doesn't that kill them?  Okay. So let's talk about the dairy industry. Here's footage from the dairy industry in Australia. So cows to produce milk have to have a baby. So they're forcibly impregnated, and then they, so they, this is the way they're forcibly impregnated. So when they have their baby, the baby gets taken away. If the baby's born a male, they get shot on sight, okay? Because males don't produce milk for the dairy industry, okay? So they can be grown for veal or grown for beef, but usually shot on sight, this is artificial insemination. It's basically they're raping her. Now, she'll produce milk year after year. Okay. She'll dry up. They'll rape her again. She'll produce another child. She'll have that taken. And then after she can't produce milk anymore, turn into beef. Okay. So if cows only produce milk, they're like human women. They only produce milk when they have a baby. Do you have any children? No. So it's not like if we stopped dairy farming, all these cows would die because their udders would explode because they're full of milk and no one's milking them. They skip out a lot of the procedure. They don't tell us that cows are raped and have their children, they're impregnated, have their calves taken from them, and then they take the milk. They don't tell us that. No, that was just always something I heard that you have to milk cows, otherwise they die. Well, they're milking them three times a day in these big milking parlours and they've been selectively bred to produce 12 times more milk than normally. It's an industry, basically. They're industrializing these animals. Now, whatever they tell you is their excuse for this. It's just their excuse. Yeah, well, that's the thing. I think a lot of people in good faith accept what they say and say, oh, well, they would know. And so you don't know what the actual truth is because you just take it on good faith. That's what they're saying. Well, they have their procedures online. You can check up the dairy humane standards in Australia. All of these practices of taking calves away, killing bobby calves, slaughtering the mothers after they can't produce milk for us anymore, turning them to burgers, turning them into leather couches. This is all easy for you to find out yourself. We have footage from inside these places. We're getting the footage. Industry won't. We're showing people. Yeah, it's just something I've been thinking about for a while. If I myself couldn't actually murder an animal for food, there must be something in my conscience and in my heart that says, I'm not comfortable with the process. We have other things to eat and every single individual here in Melbourne right now has got other things to eat other than someone's body. Can you recommend a good vegan cookbook? I can recommend you a fantastic Facebook group. It's called Challenge 22. You can do a little vegan challenge at the start and they help you with all this. You can go, hey, I'm in Melbourne. I want to do the vegan challenge and you can say, what's the good milk? Where's this? What's some good recipes? And I work with them and anyone who's interested can sign up.  They were peasants, so I know a lot of already... Pasta and beans and... Yeah, things like that. Okay, so yeah, it's something I've been sort of struggling with a bit for a while. Don't seem like you'd be comfortable with abusing animals. No. Well, as you said, none said, if you yourself say I'm for the death penalty, but you couldn't actually do the lethal injection, you couldn't pull the switch on the electric chair, then obviously there's something in you that's not comfortable with it. And if I can eat an animal, it's unrecognizable, but if I had to actually go out there and murder an animal, I couldn't do it, which says to me, I'm not comfortable with it. Deep down.  I think so. Really nice talking to you. Remember, it's called Challenge 22. Challenge 22. No, it's just Google the website and then you can sign up and now contact you back. Okay. Thanks.