OK, so, welcome on our session, our last session, last day, so together with my colleague we prepared presentation about Kubernetes, SDN, performance and architecture so, the goal of this presentation is to take through our findings and our ideas and a tady bylo všechny měl výstřední měl, které byli výstřední a výstředné. Ano, bylo to výstředné, a bylo to výstředné, a bylo to výstředné, a bylo to výstředné, Márek můžete přijít kalykou v dětáře, opuníkou kontrénu v dětáře a tady bychom způjít děláme to dvě soličního. Co je to zvukovat? A co je to zvukovat, když se vždyží? Což o měm je Jakub Pavlík a jsem formální CTO of TCP cloud now, director of product engineering at Mirantes. And Marek is software engineer, also comes from TCP cloud and we work together for more than two years on different cases and different workloads. So networking in Kubernetes, first thing is like when containers appeared, we successfully ignored them for a long time because it was like playing ground for the developers and we didn't want to take it serious. And the reason was the networking and the problems with like port mapping and how to build a production because build a container, run the container on the laptop is easy. You can launch it, you can launch multiple containers, but how do you want to orchestrate and run some production, high availability, disaster recovery and of course the networking. And we started to take containers serious when we discovered the Kubernetes as approach which finally take the containers and replace the way where you have to map each port for the application and remember how you are exposing ports.  We just launch the port and expose the port as a service endpoint and you have balancing so it's really cool solution what we took a look and we started working on it. And there are different approaches for different use case like overlay versus non-overlay discussion, multi-terrancy security performance scaling. We will take you through this, how we see it. And it's also like there is multiple plugins similar like I see like analogy in OpenStack Neutron at the beginning when there was and still there are couple of plugins and it's difficult for people who are new to understand which plugin works and usually you have to test that because everyone does tell you this plugin is the best. So there are couple of SDNs, Calico, OpenContrail, Romana v Contif, OpenVSwitch. We look at it and because we come from the OpenStack and this is OpenStack Summit and one of the most usable solution for Neutron is OpenContrail. We decided that we will pick the OpenContrail as example and Calico as most common and let's say from our point production ready network plugin for the Kubernetes and we wanted to compare those two solutions not just as performance but also functional features and the use cases. So overlay versus non-overlay. So if you look at common overlay concerns like this is now very popular for the people. So they saying like you lose the benefit of the simplicity, you lose the performance because you have overlay which is not needed. It's difficult to maintain, it's difficult to troubleshoot. So these are the statements of the people who prefer non-overlay and if you look at the overlay you have benefits like native multi-tenancy, security and with the OpenContrail you can get features like EVP and L3 VPN, you have analytics. So this is like two worlds where the new world is non-overlay and the second world is legacy enterprise which need to cover several features which must be there. Some of the time usually people try to simplify that it's just a performance issue. But from the performance perspective not using overlay you still necessarily use the internal bridges, the moves for the container and the performance difference in the end and you will see it on our slide is like 3% or 4% of the payload what differs and maybe what's the difference huge is the packet per second which the question is if this parameter is really valuable in the containers it makes sense for NFV clouds where you are launching the firewalls and routers but the question is if containers also need this. So I borrowed a statement from my favorite guys so the key aspect is to consider is the operation complexity and it's really depends on the use case where what you are running. If you are running application just one application stack and you don't need to solve the security, the balancing and separation of these services and physical infrastructure separation from the application itself then non-overlay is fine. If you need to separate it and you need to put your endpoint for the oracle database cluster or go on some legacy world then you will probably need the overlay and we are not saying what is right. So we run the test environment when we run several functional and performance tests. These are the use cases what we tried with my team for almost one year so we run the Calico on bare metal cluster with 100 nodes. We run Kubernetes with open control on the nodes with open control 2.x, with open control 3.x. We run open control inside of Kubernetes with the Calico. We run open control and Kubernetes next together. We run Calico in open stack with open control through the BGP as a service feature. We posted also the blog about and we are running also open control Kubernetes in open stack with Kubernetes when you are using single control as a data plane and you can map through the v-router. So we tried multiple scenarios and we tested in scale of up to 100 nodes not more and we will share the story today. So my colleague will take you through each components. I would like to start to explain you the basic components of the Calico architecture but first let me tell you the other evaluation of the Calico. We have been using an evaluating Calico since the Kubernetes version 1.1 and we are now presenting Calico as the default networking solution for the Kubernetes. For the new version of Mirantis Cloud Platform. So let me get back to the architecture point of view. Calico is using CNI which stands for the container network interface which is abstraction layer for connecting the third party SDN solution to the containers. It's using the traditional bird routing daemon for all the BGP stuff. It's using ETCD as a key value store for the Calico configuration. It's using the confD for the generating the bird configuration file and Felix as a daemon which is on each Calico node. I would like to mention that the Calico as we use it is pure layer free. So there is only routing and I will hop into the next slide. What it actually does, it takes a node, it takes the slash whatever network. It gives it to the node and when you spin up the container, it will provide the slash 32 host network to the container. And then the routing information is distributed via BGP. So by default in Calico, there is the full mesh BGP network which is not like really good for production and it's not really good for scale. Because when you will end up having 100 servers, you end up having 100 BGP sessions per server. When you have 1000 servers, you end up having 1000 BGP sessions per server. So that's why we are using the routers as a router reflectors which stands like for the centralized propagation of the routes. So by default, IBGP is not distributed to the IBGP peers but with router reflectors. You only peer the nodes with these router reflectors and they are responsible for distributing the routes to the other nodes. So you will end up having for each Calico node having the two BGP sessions with the router reflectors. There are two for like active backup scenario. This is not only the only concern, the other concern is that you are trying to be like not dependent on the underlay at all. Because when you are using pure layer 3, you need to redistribute the routes all over your network so the nodes can communicate to each other. So you actually need to propagate these slash networks from the Calico to the networking infrastructure and you need to use for example BGP to do that.  So you are just peering it with the router reflectors. OK, so some pros and cons of using Calico, one of the pros is that there is no overhead. Since you are using only pure layer 3, there is no inner header, outer header, no encapsulation at all. It's all transparent routing and the other thing is that it reduces the complexity. For example in this world for like traditional networking guys it's really hard to go along with the SDNs and stuff. But since this is using the normal routing daemon, the bird, it's possible for like traditional networking engineers to troubleshoot and operate this stuff. On the other hand it is highly underlay dependent since you need to connect the Calico nodes with the BGP protocols and you need to redistribute the routes all over the environment. So it kind of take you away the benefit why you even use the overlays so that you don't want to be dependent on your networking team. And of course there is also no layer 2 since there is by default only routing. Some facts about the Calico using the Kubernetes. As I already mentioned it is using the CNI plug-in. We are right now evaluating Calico 0.22.0 with Kubernetes 1.4. And one of the features that it provides is the Kubernetes policy for the security. Then we have also some production consideration what we have found out during our testing and evaluation. And one of these things are to always separate the ETCD cluster for the Calico. I mean separated from the Kubernetes ETCD don't use the same key value store. The other thing is use at least version 3 ETCD which brings a huge improvement of like performance. The other thing that I already mentioned is to disable BGP full mesh peering. And then we have a thing that it's like from our point of view right now don't run it as a Kubernetes manifest. This is like our evaluation right now also for the Kubernetes. We prefer to run it as a system these services rather than run it in Kubernetes manifest. OK, let's jump on OpenContrail. I will also start like with some brief architecture overview. But first let me tell you the experience that our company has with this SDN. We have been using the OpenContrail for more than like two and a half years. But we started to using it with OpenStack because at the time the Kubernetes wasn't even existing. So our main experience is with OpenStack and the virtual machines. And we are using the Kubernetes or OpenContrail plug-in for Kubernetes since day one. So OpenContrail is an overlay solution and it has like parts like control, config, analytics, database, agent. I mean, there are a lot of services and let me just briefly tell you that control is responsible for like control pane, the connection between the agents, exchange routing information between agents and between the physical gateways. Config is using to translate the API calls, UI calls or whatever calls to actually to make the configuration change. Analytics collects the huge amount of data about all the flows, about the performance usage of all your nodes, etc. The database is then for the persistent storage of your configuration as well as the analytics data. And the agent together with the kernel module then is responsible for all the rounding and stuff. OpenContrail gives you opportunity to use multiple encapsulations like MPLS over GR, MPLS over UDP, as well as the BXLAN. It usually uses the physical gateways and it's also our recommendation to use them. These gateways are used for north-south traffic from the OpenStack point of view as well as from the Kubernetes point of view. If your containers want to go out, they go through the gateways. This is like example topology of the control plane of the OpenContrail with Kubernetes. As you can see on the right side, there are two control controllers which has the XMPP sessions with the VRouter agent. The concept is similar as well as the Calico works with the router reflectors. When there is a change on the VRouter agent, the change is propagated to the control nodes via XMPP. And then the control controllers are responsible for distributing all the networking changes to all other agents. And as well as there is the BGP peering to the cloud gateways. I don't want to make a confusion. This is only for control plane. The data plane tunnels are created directly from the containers to the gateways as well as between the containers. So this stands only for control plane. Also the pros and cons of using OpenContrail. It is underlay agnostic. You are not dependent on the top of direct switches, aggregation switches or whatever switches. Maybe someone can say that the routers are like the legacy world as well, but we see the cloud gateways, the physical routers for termination of the tunnels as a solution of the cloud. So they are part of the SDN from our point of view. It's not the part of the legacy world. The other benefit is that there are capabilities of advanced networking features, including load balancers as a service, using the layer 2, layer 3 VPNs, also extension to the bare metal world like orchestrating the top of direct switches via OVSDB, configuring the routers via Netconf and other stuff. I put the using physical gateways to the pros because we see it as more stable and it also provides you the possibility to connect almost every encapsulation from the world to your cloud. So you have no limitation considering what can go to the cloud, what can go to cloud. It provides the full separation on layer 3 or layer 2. So that's why it's under the pros. Under the cons there's, of course, overhead. It's mentioned that there is adding the payload to each packet that is processed. You have inner outer header and also the complexity. I mean advanced networking features goes hand-to-hand together with the complexity and so it can give you a lot of trouble. Let me tell you how the open-contrail works. Oh, there is a mistake with the Kubernetes. There is the Kubernetes Network Manager, which provides the bridge, the connection between the Kubernetes API server and the Contrail Config API. There is the huge difference in the balancing between the containers and from accessing to the cluster. In the Contrail it is using ECMP from the gateway up to the containers or between containers itself. So there is no cube proxy or IP tables balancing, like with other SDNs like Calico. There is also a bigger separation on the networking level. The networks are created and the containers are associated to the networks based on the labels in the manifests. So by design in overlay the networks are completely separated, but the Contrail is using the next level of separation on the namespace level and it takes like the concept of the namespace in Kubernetes, which normally is more or less like logical separation rather than physical separation. It can be comparable in OpenStack tenants. So it's like an open-contrail point of view, the namespace is in Kubernetes, are tenants in OpenStack. And the security is done by Contrail policies. We are currently evaluating the Contrail, the latest stable release, 3.0.3, which supports Kubernetes 1.4. Then we have some production consideration for using OpenContrail. This is not like a consideration using OpenContrail with Kubernetes, but using OpenContrail at all. Always separate the Cassandra cluster, the database cluster for the config and for the analytics because analytics can generate loads of data which can overload your Cassandra or your disk space. As I already mentioned, use physical routers as a gateways. All right, and I will give the word back to Jacob. Okay, okay, so a small comparison. So regarding paint performance, as I said, it really depends on the encapsulation in the Contrail. We get the best performance with MPLS over UDP between containers and MPLS over GRE towards gateways. The performance here really depends on the nick offloading. So it's really difficult to say what will be the performance because it depends on the drivers, on the kernel. So we did the test with onKernel 4.4, on Ubuntu Zenile. The payload overhead is around 4%. In this particular case, how we measured that by IPerf, it's like 1%. But we had to... So it's like it's very difficult. It's around a percentage and it's not really about bandwidth no, probably, but in overlay world it's more about packet per second, as I already said, and packet per seconds in containers. I don't think that it's a real issue because what you usually running in the containers are in Gynics and Apache and this proxy. So if I need more performance, more packets, I will scale my container rather than increase the container. So that's the biggest difference between virtual machines and the containers and still like NFV features, where these functions are needed for the performance, are not useful for the Kubernetes and containers. On the Calico side, it's no encapsulation, no overhead and bandwidth is almost similar. It doesn't make sense to really show how CPU utilization is measured and how it's generated because it's not exact measurable and exact comparable. The important thing is that the bandwidth is almost the same and it's not really about performance but about the use case, what you are trying to get. So why not both? In this example, we are showing that we are able to run the physical servers with Kubernetes on the hardware with Contrail as well as OpenStack with the Contrail and we can provision for the users, for the developers through the heat through the Murano or whatever, application workloads with Kubernetes with Calico for the testing. So if developers need to quickly test something or developer pre-ground with Kubernetes, you can easily do it. We also set up the case where we enabled BGPS service in the OpenContrail and we put the BGPP ring from the virtual machines into the V-Router on the node which is the latest feature of the OpenContrail and we run it. What we see in this multi-example approach, especially here, it's like for whatever reason you cannot put everything into the container and it's not sometimes technical but it's licensed sometimes also. So for some reasons you cannot take some vendor databases and put them into virtual machines or put them in the container, it doesn't make sense. So with the overlay you can very easily connect your physical nodes with Kubernetes application controllers with your database nodes which are running on the OpenStack VMs or which are running on a completely separated bare metal server or whatever is needed. So this is also one of the use cases which we tested and which works very well. So another thing what was presented yesterday, I think, by Rudra from the Contrail team is like running Kubernetes with Contrail on top of OpenStack with Contrail and use the same Contrail because there is starting to be issue like duplication of the overlay, overlay in overlay, vrouter in vrouter. So they solve this issue very easily that Kube network manager which managed Kubernetes is able to call Contrail controllers of OpenStack and he is able to add sub interface for your container directly into the virtual machine. So then you can use same approach, same networking and you can again on the cloud mixed your containers and VMs in the OpenStack which is another very good use case. What we found for the Kubernetes itself it's like that we are building our own binaries Mirante supports the Kubernetes clusters so we have a downstream team which works with the upstream and provide a patched and fixed stable production Kubernetes. So we are taking these binaries and instead of taking docker containers with unknown origin or building them itself we have team for this and we offer this service to our customers and we are running these services right now as well as ETCD in SystemD not in the manifest with the docker because from the operation perspective we figure out that doesn't make sense for us really to launch Kubernetes itself in the Kubernetes or in the containers because it adds extra complexity. ETCD is one binary Kubernetes, HyperCube now it's also one binary so today we cannot take these two files and put them into SystemD and not be dependent on everything on the docker and everything running in the container so we are separating this we also have a provisioning tool what we offer and what we are using which is not like upstream default installed installation because it's a lot of mess and a lot of stuff mostly for developers not for the production so we are building the Kubernetes putting stuff together and make it real as operation ready for our customers instead of playing ground for the developers and we also pulled images from the private docker registry with the authentication so this is how looks our production Kubernetes deployments so small comparison in the end so opencontrail, Calico encapsulation in contrail you can choose as I said MPLS over UDP had the best performance between containers bandwidth it's like difference of 5% let's say in general security multiterrancy in Calico you have new policy and you need to specify which is like extra work or it creates IP tables so it works but on the other hand in contrail it's natively so everything what you provision based on your label it creates virtual network which is completely separated and based on just labels you automatically creating the policy so that's the differences when launching Kubernetes for single purpose you don't need to really solve the policies multi cloud opencontrail enable you to cover VM, bare metal containers whatever in the Calico you cannot cover but you can run internal merantis team created solution where you can run for Kubernetes as well as for the open stack so you can reuse single Calico it's especially for use cases when you want to run container as open stack on top of Kubernetes and open stack should use neutron plug in Calico so then it makes sense to use single Calico for both and don't have to complexity Calico is just bird and bird is here for several years so it's stable and it's using ETCD as just storing the objects so it's pretty easy we didn't find any issues what how to where we spend some time on huge debugging in opencontrail it's like set of many tools Cassandra Zukipl Redis, Kafka Lot of lot of stuff and for new people it's really difficult to understand but that's the reason why we are here to help you to set up your opencontrail environments and extra features as Marek said you can get almost everything into your container which is awesome on the other hand if it's really needed because containers are created for the simplifying this is just the question question sorry this is just the picture from Mirantyská platform design how it's how it's done now so what we are testing when we launching Mirantyská platform with opencontrail it's like we taking the small deployments which are the servers where we are putting HA proxy for Kubernetes HA because again with Kubernetes you need to solve high availability and how you will solve it you need to have two or better is three nodes and you need to have single endpoint so again you will end up with virtual IP on top of that the contrail controllers as the containers as well as open stack and we also provisioning Galera and RabbitMQ into the containers so this is just another use case what we did so that's everything what we want to share so if there are any questions we can answer them I'm curious what will be this question it will be difficult to answer no it will be easy one so I have the question on the architecture you shown them mixed architecture right so the question from the service providers is like if you want to use opencontrail and you also want to use open stack the front end is open stack and there is so much challenge like if you want to make some change then you can't upstream it so what do you suggest in that case like you mean when you want to launch Kubernetes inside of open stack for the services just leave the containers aside just using open stack and open contrail so if we want to change some port definition bring in enhancement to open stack there is no way to upstream because the back end is contrail so what should the service providers do in that case I'm not sure if I get the right so you mean like changes in the open stack what you did and how to get it into opencontrail you have to upstream into open stack the community is working in a different direction but opencontrail is working in a different that's the good question that's difficult it must be discussed with the probably contrail development team how to do it yesterday I heard that you have to submit a blueprint and they will figure out but basically I think that I know that neutron support couple of features or neutron team trying to support couple of features which are not in the opencontrail so that's the like really difficult decision and it's depends on the use case what's exactly you need it's difficult to answer it's more about to bring the people from contrail and ask them how they follow the neutron vision thank you for the talk talk is performance I had a few questions regarding the performance could you go to the slide that you had on performance so here could you elaborate a little more on what tool was used what packet sizes were and when you mentioned you had 100 nodes how exactly does that fit in with performance take it yeah well with the containers we didn't actually like increase the MTU sizes and we were only using the standard byte size that is used by IPER so we actually didn't like create didn't try to create any scenario that we won't like see in our environment at all so basically we scale 200 nodes and then we provisioned ports see how it behaves and then we did the measuring between the nodes what performance we can get between the containers between east and west and what performance we can get from the from the north and south and we didn't want to replicate what everything was done for example by Calico team where they measured it containers bare metal and they measured the CPU and all this stuff where the bandwidth is near line speed and we tried to focus more on as I said like performance is not only one criterion what why we are choosing or picking the solution because you can easily scale we tested like how many objects we can also create in ETCD like because when you are growing your ETCD is growing as well so we started with ETCD version 2 then we moved to ETCD version 3 so that's like for the for the routing of the Calico especially it's like it's BIRD and it's a native native routing okay so but just to go back so you mentioned that you had ports which are running IPer so one port is on the one is a client, one is a server so you had the NIC offloads does Mirante support enabling the NIC offloads when you deploy the cluster or you had to go to each node to specifically tune I'm pretty sure you used RSS, DSO, GSO just to get the performance yeah that's some tuning what you need to set on the NIC and I said it depends on what NIC you are using but on most of the cases we didn't do any special parameters for the NIC because in contrail when you increase the NTU then you get this performance and in Calico you get it without any tuning these parameters thanks I would like to maybe add that we are using Calico but there is not like the a lot of Calico containers which will be increased by increasing the cluster size because on the compute nodes there is running Calico so the server is aware of the Calico routes as well as the Kubernetes is able to make the balancing between the service endpoints but the things that run on the hypervisors in containers are LibVirt and the WacomPute which uses the host networking ok so if there are not any more questions thank you for your attention thank you


Good morning and welcome to the Labour Force and your Population Survey Conference. Now move on to the main session in the conference. So I'm very pleased to introduce Nae Komuneti, who will share his screen shortly. So Nae works at the Resolution Foundation as a senior economist. The Resolution Foundation is an independent think tank that focuses really on living standards of low-income households. They do a lot of research and they advocate quite effectively for policy change or policy adaptation. His particular focus is on the labour market and low-paid work, so working on issues such as the minimum wage, the living wage, job quality and insecurity. Along with many of us, I suppose, working in research, more recently the impact of COVID-19 on that group of people who have been in the labour market that he's been interested in. So over to Nae for his presentation. If you have questions, then post them in the Q&A on the website as we go through. Yeah, OK, well, thanks very much. Nigel, let me just quickly show you a fellow across the office. Yeah, thank you very much for inviting me to talk to you this morning. I can see, so I'm joined by what looks like a collection of people from various universities. So hello, it's very nice to talk to you. Nigel invited us to join your conference today. And my plan is to talk a bit about a paper that I recently worked on, which is very much based on the labour force survey as well as some other data. But before I do that, I was going to talk a little bit about who we are as an organisation and also a bit about a programme of work called the Economy 2030 Inquiry, which this work I'm looking at now sits within. So that's sort of the rough plan. It's going to be who are we? What is this programme of work that we're doing? And then I'll show you some. Yeah, then I'll take you through the work that I've been doing recently. So let me share my slides. Hopefully this will work. Share. Can you see that as a full screen or do I need to do anything different? That's full screen now. OK, brilliant. All right, I'll crack on them. So, yes, an introduction to RF highlights from our Economy 2030 programme and then a summary of this paper changing jobs. So first of all, who are Resolution Foundation? I've got no idea when I do these kinds of talks, whether we have enough of a reputation that sort of explaining who we are is irritating because you know, or whether I should go into detail because you've never heard of us. It seems to vary, but I'll assume that you don't really have any sense of who we are. So this is our this is the mission statement that you would find if you went on to our website, which is, I think, a useful place to start. So we're an independent think tank focused on improving the living standards of those on low to middle incomes. And we work across a wide range of economic and social policy areas, combining our core purpose with commitment to rigor. Now, there's a lot of words in there, some of which sound like, well, what do we really mean by those things? So just to quickly dwell on a couple of them. So by independent, that means we're not tied to any political party. So obviously we talk to the Labour Party, we talk to the Conservative Party, but we're not tied to them, which is not quite the case for some other think tanks and the benefit there is that we can talk to both. So whichever party is in power, we would hope to still be able to have some influence. By living standards, we usually mean disposable income. That's sort of our standard way of thinking about that. Obviously, you could probably think about others as well. And the group they were focused on is those on low to middle income. So the reason for that, I think, is when we were set up, which is about 15 years ago now, there were a few research organisations and charities focused on the very lowest earners or those in the very lowest incomes. But I think at the time, it felt like there was a gap in that sort of for that low to middle bracket and that those concepts like squeezed, you know, just about managing sort of came out of some of that thinking. But I think in a sort of day to day sense, it's not like we would sort of throw in the bin anything that didn't relate to deciles two to five or anything like that. So, you know, we don't sort of stick to that completely rigidly. And then, yes, our purpose and our rig are very important to us. So who we are, we're about, I think we still consider ourselves fairly small, but we have been growing recently. There's about 30 of us who work here, of which about 20 are researchers. We're established in 2005. I have no idea if anyone is interested in the money side of things, but I find it interesting when you sort of get a sense of what it costs to run an organisation like us, it would cost about two million pounds a year to run, and the majority of our money comes from a single trust, which is actually a single person who sets up its trust a long time ago. That comes about two thirds of our costs. And then we do commission projects alongside it. That's sort of a very quick sense of who we are. This is London. So if you're interested in geographically where we are, that's where I'm talking to you now. I'm actually in the office. So we're just off Burkage or Bison James Park. This is a picture of our building. And actually, I am literally the other side of that window right there. That window of my shoulder is that one there. So there you go. Nigel, when I spoke to you, I think you were interested in how we achieve our aim. So I suppose it's very well saying you want to improve work and improve the living standards of low income households. And it's very well saying we're going to do some research about how do those things connect with each other? How does one relate to the other? So first of all, you know, rigor I think is very important to us. First of all, obviously, if we want to draw, you know, we want to be correct in the things that we say, we want to come up with correct findings and so on. But I think it's more than that because without reggae, you just don't get anywhere.  So often give us a call because there's a certain amount of trust there. And that basically comes from 15 years of building a reputation for caring a lot about rigor. So it's really, really important to us. And without it, you basically don't get anywhere is our view. So that's sort of the bedrock on which everything else is based. But in terms of impact, I think we try and do that in two ways. I think you've probably got in your head this this the short term version of impact, which might be, you know, a minister is trying to make a decision about something. You go from meeting and you provide them with a sort of briefing that sets out a bit of research and your views. And that's definitely a way in which it's possible for a think tank to have impact and we do that. So we'll definitely try to intervene at key moments when there are decisions being taken, most obviously, you know, twice a year there's a budget and we would be putting out reports before the budget saying, you know, these are the key issues facing the groups that we care about. And here's what policy might do and we'll do reactions. But in particular over the last year, there have been many more and during the crisis, I mean, there have been many more moments where there have been these short term moments where clearly the government is in a sort of decision making frame of mind and we've very much tried to influence those moments as well. So during the creation of the furlough scheme, we were sort of quite quick to put out papers. And when I say quick, I mean, within a couple of days, papers saying, here's how we would design this kind of a scheme. And this would be this is what the impact might be. And then similarly at the moment, during what is said to be a positive in crisis this year, driven by the rising energy prices, we are similarly putting out policy proposals, which some of which we hope might get taken out. So there are definitely short term ways in which a think tank like ours can achieve impact, but probably the less obvious way. And but perhaps no less important, maybe more important is this sort of long term effect that we try to have on the policy debate in terms of both which issues have some kind of profile and the way in which they're being discussed. So we sort of think of this as sort of a drumbeat of reports building the intellectual case for caring about living standards and for thinking about policy in the way that we do. And it's sort of hard to see that because, you know, you don't notice it day to day. But I think and I wasn't really, I've only sort of been in this world for the last 10 years, so I wasn't quite around at the full outset of our organization. But we, yeah, but those are where I say that, you know, living standards as an issue just had a much lower profile back then, whereas nowadays it would be impossible for, you know, an event like the budget or a big policy statement to happen without people asking about, you know, what is the impact of living standards? What is the impact on incomes of low earners? Those are just sort of default questions they come that get asked now. And that wasn't necessarily the case when we set out. So that's how we think about impact. I know that Nigel, you're potentially going to invite questions at the end, but I'm very happy to take interruptions at any points, especially because I've got a somewhat of a sort of a three part set of slides here. So if anyone has any questions to talk about that first bit, I'd be very happy to take them. I can't see the other is a chat, so I might briefly look into the chat. I don't think there's any questions for me, but OK, I'll move on. But yeah, please do, please do interrupt and raise your hand. And whatever you feel like, if you have any questions to talk about. So moving on, then, we have we six months ago launched a programme of work called the Economy 2030 Enquirer, which sort of does what it says on the thing. It's about where we think the economy is headed over the coming decade. We are doing this. It's a collaboration. So it's all funded by Nuffield. So does anyone here from Nuffield? Thank you very much. And it's a collaboration between us and the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. And so far, I think there's been about 15 researchers there about about that, maybe 10 or 15 that have been involved with this programme of work. And on our side, like I said earlier, there's 20 researchers. So we're covering quite a broad range of topics, which I'll go through in a moment. And what we do is we sort of bring in the different researchers as and when we want to. So why are we doing this inquiry? So our argument is that the 2020s are going to be a very important decade for the UK economy and by extension for living standards for local households, the group that we care about. So it's not just that this is the post pandemic period where we will sort of to some extent see life returning to normal, but will also be faced by the lingering effects of covid. It's also going to be the period where the economy adjusts to Brexit. Obviously, some some of those adjustments have been happening already and are happening now, but we think those are going to continue over the next decade. And it's also the decade where much of the work in terms of transitioning to net zero has to take place. So we think those three things are what we would consider shocks facing the economy. And our argument is that there hasn't been anything of quite that scale happening at the same time in the UK economy for about a generation. And I'll come on to that a bit when I talk about my job report at the end. And on top of those shocks, there are the ongoing, you can either call them shocks or trends in the shape of demographic change and technology and obviously both of those things will continue to try to change in this decade as well. So our argument is this is an absolutely crucial decade and could go badly or well depending on the decisions that are taken. And the reason, therefore, that we're putting all this evidence together is to say, well, how can we best navigate this decade in a way that, you know, doesn't damage prosperity and maybe even promotes prosperity in particular for low income households? Yeah, so there you go. Those are the five drivers of change that I was just talking about, which we think will have a big impact in this decade. Just to show you a couple of images relating to those. I don't think any of this will be news to you, but it's the kind of stuff that we're trying to bring into one place. So this is just the idea. This is the internet sales as a percentage of total retail sales. And you can see it's been growing over time, but it really shot up during the pandemic. And we think that, you know, so to some extent, COVID is going to speed up or put boosters underneath preexisting trends. This could be, you know, the 1980s is the decade we usually point to as the last time there was significant change happening. And I'll talk about this more detail in a second. And the interesting thing about it is I think many people have ideas of, you know, the real difficulties of that created in some areas. And that's certainly true. And that's the next slide. But what is not often remembered is actually it was a period of quite fast rising income. So it's interesting that you can have those two things happening at the same time. But yes, this was the downside of the change that took place in the 1980s. This is the fall in employment as measured in census from 1981 to 1991 in a selection of local authorities. And I think it's just always makes me boggle looking at this chart, this sort of scale of the change in the number of jobs that took place in some of these areas. I mean, a fall of a third is an absolutely incredible change during that decade. So yes, alongside general rising incomes was obviously real pain in some parts of the country. Alongside that, this is a chart just trying to bring home the Brexit point. So obviously, I think you'd have probably seen charts like this in the news. But although trade to non-EU has been recovering, was recovering last year. Trade to EU was much slower to recover. So although it's hard to, you know, pick out Brexit from the impact of COVID, it does, you know, I think this chart makes the point fairly clearly that there definitely is going to be an impact and that will continue. And we've, you know, as I show in a moment, had started trying to think through what the impacts of that will be. Yep. And then finally, like I said, this will be the decade where the big net zero transition should happen or a large part of it. Anyway, obviously, whether or not it does is somewhat of an open question. But this is just trying to bring home the sort of scale of capital and investment costs alongside the savings, which will be required for us to get there. And this is just taken from the Climate Change Committee. And then finally, why does it all matter? Well, the argument in our launch report was that, you know, the country's economic positions can change and quite fast. So you might think it might be tempting to think that all of these things. Well, you know, yes, they're shocked, but, you know, by and large, the economy will just bump along and it will adjust and everything will be fine. But we've used this image, which is just comparing us to three other European countries to show that countries, economic positions can change quite quickly.  And the example that maybe the people talked a lot about when we showed them this graph was Italy and the difference between GDP per capita there just before the financial crisis and now. So Italy went from being at the top of this group to down towards the bottom with Spain and the UK is also obviously holding behind a relative journey in that period as well. OK, so that's that sort of in a nutshell why we decided to launch this programme of work. We started it in the summer. It's a two year programme of work and we have been busy. So this was our launch report, but we've since also now written reports on on what we on on workers experiences of work. We've written a report about the carbon crunch. This was a report about trading regimes and how they and their impact in the economy. This was on the performance of the UK's businesses with this focus on productivity. This was on the impact of the covid crisis, where we focused a lot on the rise in economic inactivity and suggested that that was likely to be a lasting legacy of the crisis. So far, that looks like that is the case in the latest labor market stats. You can see that connectivity was still heading upwards. This was a very long look at trends in the history of welfare in this country. The different groups is favoured, you know, where we showed, for example, the really significant falls in replacement rates of people and losing work and having recourse to social security payments. And this I'm putting this one in here because of just the excellent point in the title. But this was by my colleague Sophie and it was about the this one came out yesterday and it was about the prospects for a trade deal with India and what impact that might have. So those are reports that we've done in the last couple of months. In addition, we've done a few briefing notes. On top of those was this one. So this was a report that came out in January, which I co-authored with colleagues at the LSE. And so that is about the history of economic change in the labor market and workers' experiences of those change. So that is what I was going to talk to you about in the final part of this presentation. But again, I'll just do a quick pause in case anyone has anything they wanted to ask or shout about in those slides I just shared. And absolutely fine if I don't know if you don't know, of course. Moving on then. So again, the premise of of our whole economic economy 2030 inquiry is that this will be a decade where a lot of change happens. And it's important that policy makers take the right decisions and manage that change well. And we will be building a full set of policy proposals around that in the second year of our inquiry. But this first year is more about looking backwards and trying to understand how changes happened in the past and trying to understand what's happening now as well. So this report was focused on how change in the labor market has happened in the past and what workers' experiences of those work. So to do that, we set up a bit of a straw man argument relating to economic change, which is that I think in many people's minds, the pace of change is speeding up. So you might see headlines of, you know, robots taking our jobs or reports of exciting new technologies. And, you know, it might feel like there's a world of work change in the world of work is speeding up. That's maybe an idea that many people have, but you can tell me if that's not the case. And secondly, although I'm sure many would agree that structural change has positives, I think many would think that it mainly involves it happens mainly through people losing their jobs in declining sectors. Obviously relating to that story, I showed you earlier of those parts of the country that really they experience really significant job loss in the 80s. So our report is sort of testing the extent to which these two ideas are true. And there are definitely some aspects of them are true, but I think they also need to be challenged a bit as well so that we can have a sort of a fully rounded understanding of how change has tended to happen in the past. And yeah, our suggestion is that that might give us a better sense of what's going to be coming in this decade. So first of all, first of all, this idea that change has sped up and I should clarify that here.  But in particular, we're focusing on the extent to which labor is reallocating across different sectors of the economy. So manufacturing services and so on. We will definitely and have done in the past written reports about, you know, changes in job security, contract type, people's experience of work. That's really in no way discounting that. But I just want to clarify that this report is about change in the kinds of jobs that we're doing as described by occupations and sectors. So the brief answers to the question of is change speeding up is perhaps surprisingly no. So this is here presenting you a measure of the rate at which taking a decade on decade view, so looking at the structure of the economy now to 10 years ago and doing that all the way back throughout the century. It's a measure of how different is the sectoral composition at those two points in time? And the reason there are two lines on this chart is that we use two different aggregations of economic sectors. And that's just to do with the data that is available over different time periods. You can get a very long term series of employment by eleven sections that comes from the Bank of England's Millennium of Macro Economic Data. If you want a slightly more detailed that data only goes back to the 1970s. But interestingly, they basically tell exactly the same story. Which is that change has been the rate of change in terms of the the composition of the sectoral composition of work has been basically slowing down since the mid 1980s. It did pick up around the time of the financial crisis, but then the trend of a slowing pace of change continued after that. And I think that's potentially surprising to some people. Like I said, you might have this sense that change is speeding up. But it doesn't look like that is really the case. There's not really enough data yet to plot the impact of covid on this chart.  It's not really something you'd be able to measure this long, long term view. But yes, aside from the 80s, and I'll focus on that in a second. The other periods where we observe fast rates of change have been around the around the war. So you can see after the Second World War, the composition of work was very different to to to what it was. Ten years before that. So what was it that was happening in the 80s that was leading to such a high rate of change? Well, I think, as you'll probably all know, it was the transformation from manufacturing to a range of services. And basically, that was happening at a much faster rate in that period than it was now. It's still happening. You can see on this this graph here and this is the proportion of jobs in a selection of sectors. So, yeah, the proportion of jobs represented by section of sectors got manufacturing down the bottom there. And you've got a number of services in green there, two of which are public sector or main public sector services or education health, but we also got professional services. You could add to this picture a number of other personal services like hospitality. But the data doesn't go quite as far back as it's not quite as easily manipulable. So that this I think even with these services here, you can tell a fairly clear story of manufacturing employment was actually pretty stable from the 50s to the 70s. And even if you go back to earlier in the century, you know, the proportion of jobs in manufacturing didn't really change for the first half of the 20th century. But then in the 70s and 80s, we just saw this really rapid fall in manufacturing share of employment driven by technological changes, globalization and so on. And in its place came jobs in services. So basically in the 80s, we had this really fast rate of transformation and those forces to a large extent are still happening, but a lot of them have, you know, run out of steam. So although change is still happening, as I showed you in that previous chart, it's just happening at a much slower pace nowadays. So that's the response to point one. And a second yeah, the second idea that I think many people have is the structural change like this mainly happens through individual workers losing their jobs, being made redundant. So, you know, manufacturing facilities somewhere close down and people lose their jobs and then individual workers need to look for, you know, work in another sector or perhaps remain unemployed or inactive, as many did in the 1980s. And I'm certainly not here arguing that that doesn't happen. Clearly it does in any crisis. You can observe rates of redundancy rising. But I first want to just argue that that's not the only way in which these kinds of structural changes happen. So reallocation of labor across sectors can come from a number of sources. Workers can individually move jobs between sectors. And that does happen. But you can also have reallocation from the net effect at the sector level of workers joining and leaving the workforce. And in the report, we split that into a natural entry and exit, which we think about as the difference between younger workers joining the workforce and older workers leaving it. So you might have a stylized picture in your head of younger workers nowadays more like to be joining services and older workers, perhaps in manufacturing leaving. And so that effect, even if no individual work actually makes the move from those sectors can lead to quite significant amounts of sectoral reallocation. And then you can also have that effect going on, but within career. So people to move in and out of the labor market. And I think this is the first time I've seen someone try to pick apart those those different types of reallocation. And we did and we did this using the annual survey of hours and earnings. And it's it's far from a perfect data set to be doing this. We have to rely on the panel component here and we're and I'll explain how we how we did that. And it's not perfect, but I haven't seen, you know, an attempt at measuring this elsewhere. And interestingly, what it shows is that so this is manufacturing, which obviously, as we just looked just seen was falling in employment in this period. But workers directly moving between sectors is in the red bars there. And that does contribute to falling employment in manufacturing.  Actually, it's it's it's the one of the smaller factors driving reallocation. The bigger factor in the 80s and 90s, anyway, was what we call in the natural entry and exit. So as I said, the difference between younger workers joining the labor force and all the work is leaving it, which I think is quite interesting because it suggests you can have really significant rates of change, which doesn't entirely rest on individual workers experiencing that change. So that for me was quite interesting. And another way of showing the same point of this natural entry and exit effect is to look at the changing age profile of the manufacturing workforce. So this is the difference in employment by age over a 25 year period. We can't in this data, this is looking at the LFS. Now, we can't go all the way back to. But you can in some in some annual files being in the data we had really access to. I think it sort of starts here in the early 90s. And so this is a 25 year period. It's just showing that the fall in manufacturing employment has been concentrated among those of among lower age groups. But by contrast, business services, the sector which grew strongly in this period has seen jobs growth across the age range. Yeah. OK, so what should we make of of of economic change? Or here again, just referring back to that straw man, the idea that it's, you know, you know, maybe has some good aspects, but it is really negative for individuals. I think that basically is true, but it misses the fact that it is also positive for some individuals is the key is the key addition we wanted to make to that straw man. And so on that individual level, what we can do in an asset to set is again, using this panel component is look at the typical individual level pay growth of individuals who are moving jobs. And I think you may have seen a series like this, the UNS publishes one going back to I can't remember, I think it's the last 20 years or so, but we've stretched that back to the early 70s. And what you can see is that there basically has always been this move is bonus. So individuals who move jobs in a year on average, this is the story of the median annual pay growth compared to the previous year is is is always higher than the median pay growth of people who stay in their jobs. I don't think that's very surprising, but what I find interesting here is that the difference between those two, so the move is bonus, which is the which I'm showing in the in the yellow area, shaded area there has been a pretty consistent feature of economic life going back to the 70s. And it does rise and fall somewhat. It tends to fall a bit during periods of of economic crisis. You can see in the early 90s, it falls and again in the financial crisis, but it's been sort of it hovers around a trend of about four percentage points throughout that 40 year period, which I thought was quite interesting. So this move is bonus idea that individual individual workers can benefit from from change has been a consistent something we consistently observe. And that is particularly the case if workers don't just change jobs, but change jobs to a different sector or through a different region. And this is the average. This is using the the modern national and this is the average individual level pay growth over the last 15 years for workers who make these different types of moves. Obviously, there's two ways of thinking about this. You could say that, well, you know, it's it's workers or season opportunity of change, or you could say, you know, it requires you know, a more significant pay boost like this for workers to justify the archival that comes with these kind of moves. But I think either way, as the idea that, you know, change is not a wholly bad thing for workers at the individual level. And yeah, this this just just to add to that, we just had this look at this concept of occupational polarization, which I think many would have heard of. And we just argued briefly in the report that economic change over the last 20 years has actually more been characterized by occupational upgrading than it has by polarization. So this is the growth in employment by the death style of occupation at the start of the period. And we're looking at the last 20 years and you can see that so polarization is usually means growth, growth of low paying jobs, growth of high paying jobs and the fall in the middle. And there has been a fall of middle paying jobs and a growth of high paying jobs. We don't really observe much growth in the lower end. So we have described this as more of a story of upgrading rather than one of polarization. And that's particularly true of women, which you can see with the blue dots there, two men. OK, so there are definitely some positives when it comes to economic change, even for individual workers, it's not just an aggregate effect, but we certainly don't report discount the real risks that do come for some workers. And the main risk unsurprisingly is of workers losing their jobs, being made redundant. So here I'm showing you for the two quarter LFS, the proportion of workers who in the last quarter were made redundant. So facing them in voluntary job loss. But we're splitting it up in the other two lines between workers in declining and in expanding expanding sectors. And our argument in the report is that basically those earlier periods were characterized by faster rates of change. And as the rate of change across sectors has slowed down, it looks like and we can't really prove this in it. And we definitely can't. We're definitely not able to prove a causal relationship. But what we suggest anyway, or I suppose speculate, is that the slowing rate of change has meant fewer workers being pushed out of their jobs. And that's interesting because you can particularly see that happening in declining industries. There's just been much slower rates of involuntary job loss in those sectors than there was 20 years ago. And unfortunately, this is far back as we could stretch this series. Why does that matter? Well, as I'm sure won't come as a surprise, involuntary job loss is just a profoundly negative experience. Obviously, it is in the immediate sense. No one likes losing their job, but it also has negative knock on effects. So here I'm showing you in the five quarter LFS, the median pay growth people experience compared to the previous year. So this is only looking at people in work today and who are in work a year ago. And overall, that tends to come out at about 2%, controlling for inflation. But there's a really massive difference between whether a worker in that intervening period experienced some time out of work involuntarily. So in the blue, you can see that if we only look at people who had a period out of work, but for whom that period not working was voluntary, i.e. they quit their job and we in the LFS observed them not working in a particular quarter. By the time they're back in work, their typical pay growth is almost exactly in line with the overall figure on the left-hand side there. But when we look at individuals who had an involuntary period out of work within the past year, they have negative pay growth. So it's not just their workers lose their jobs and then have the pain of some time in unemployment. It's that when they do return to work, they typically earn less than they did in their previous job. So involuntary job losses are bad now and in the future. We also show in the report that involuntary job losses are associated with longer periods out of work. So it takes people slightly longer to return to work than if they quit their job voluntarily. Just looking at the time, I think I've just about got time to do this and I wanted to show you these slides because I think I'm speaking to, well, I know I'm speaking to LFS users. So I thought this might be interesting to you. So in the report, we had a deeper look at job moves and it didn't necessarily make the headlines in the report but I think the work was quite interesting. So first of all, we showed that the rates at which workers move jobs and move sectors. So job moves to a different sector are here shown in the dark blue bars and within sector job moves are shown in the light blue bars and the totality of those bars is any job move. And we showed that the rates at which workers are moving jobs really varies very significantly across different groups of workers. So there's really significant variation by age group which I think probably wouldn't be a surprise by contract types. So again, temporary work is much more likely to move jobs than those in permanent contracts. But there are also big variations in by occupation groups. So those in lower paying occupations move jobs at a much faster rate as do those in certain sectors. So hospitality and retail associated with much higher rates of job moving than those in public administration. So that was quite interesting. And one question you might have is, well, job moves have been slowing. I haven't actually shown you that chart in this presentation for the rate of which when average across the economy workers move jobs has been slowing over the last 20 or 30 years. And we have some measures going back a bit further than that, but it looks like much of that change has been happening over the last 20 or 30 years. So there, you know, and there is some extent to which compositional factors are driving that. So we know that the workforce is aging and I've just showed you that older workers are much less likely than younger workers to move jobs. But interestingly, you know, compositional factors are contributing to slowing mobility but only explain about the quarter of the fall in job mobility that we observed over the last 20 years. So, you know, they're having an effect but it's not really the main story. And this is why we suggest that that structural impact, so the rate at which the economy is changing may be the bigger factor than the changing composition of the workforce. The other thing I wanted to show you, and this was work that was done by my colleagues at LSE, was trying to not just measure whether workers are changing jobs and whether they're changing jobs to different sectors, but being a slightly more nuanced so you're trying to understand the nature of those job moves. So we can measure in this method I'll show you now not just whether someone's moving jobs but the distance of the job move that they've made and some extent also the direction of their move. We do that using the ONS's ONET database which breaks down occupations into a set of tasks which you may have come across this classification before. So it's non-routine, analytical, personal, and physical and routine cognitive and manual. So there's this sort of five task types and every occupation is given an importance waiting for these different sets of tasks.  I'm very happy to take an intervention. Please do speak up, I couldn't quite see who it was, but. Sorry, and I was trying to open the chat.  Okay, no worries, no worries. So yes, we can build this classification of task types for different occupations and then we can measure how different two jobs are in terms of the different makeup of their constituent tasks. It's a technique that has been used before but you don't see it used quite so much in the UK because you have to do this mapping of the US's ONET database onto UK occupations which definitely can be done, but I suppose it's an extra step. So you do tend to see it a bit more in the US literature. And so this then allows you to build this typology of the distance between at which workers are moving when they're moving jobs in terms of the task requirements involved in the jobs they're moving between. So this is just trying to show you that distribution. So over on the left, this is all workers changing jobs. And you can see over on the left there about a third of workers when they change jobs move to a job within the same occupation. But over on the right hand side, in the red bars you've got all the workers who moved to a job in a different occupation. And you can see the spread of the distances which are moving. And so interestingly, before I'd seen this chart I would probably have expected to look more like a consistent downward slope. So workers being more likely to move to the jobs that more closely resemble their current job and sort of tailing away as well as jobs get more distant. So, but that's not what we observe. So actually it's more common for workers to move to this sort of medium distance to make this medium distance job move than it is for them to make a really near job move. And the numbers here are a statistical contract that construct their relate to the sort of standard deviation of the difference in this measure of similarity that we construct but just to give you a slightly more concrete meaning of those numbers. So job distance move up two, which is the most common we observe is equivalent to a nurse moving to a job in a factory. And this is not, and we don't mean that in this other positive or negative way but just literally in terms of the distance between those two types of the tasks involved in those jobs, a distance of one would be equivalent to a nurse becoming a care worker or a care worker becoming a nurse. You probably imagine those jobs are much more similar in terms of the tasks they require. And then larger distances, for example, a nurse moving to become a solicitor that would be a job move of three. That's quite interesting to observe that you do still in that quite distant job move to observe a good number of job moves. But yeah, this was interesting to me and I'd be curious to know if you've seen this kind of result for the UK before. So just to bring out a couple of other results that then flow from that. So first of all, just looking at age. So I showed you already that workers who are older are less likely to move jobs. They're also, it's also the case that older workers are less likely to move jobs to a different occupation. And again, that's probably not surprising. Younger workers are still building their careers. They might be moving, they haven't quite figured out yet what job they want to end up in. So I think that's not surprising. So you can see this is the red line there. This is the portion of job moves that are to a different occupation that's higher for younger workers that falls with age. But if you look at the workers who did move occupation, which is the blue bar, the blue line, which then measures the distance that they've moved. There's not a straightforward relationship with age and it might not be the one that you would have expected. So actually the biggest distance that workers are moving is actually highest for the very oldest workers we observed, which was quite an surprising finding. So again, I would probably have expected that blue bar to look more like the blue line to look like the red line, i.e as workers get older, they're less likely to make big job moves in terms of the distance. But that's not what we observed. I thought that was quite interesting. And then the other finding to draw out is that we're not just limited to measuring the distance between jobs, but we can also look at the direction that they're moving in terms of whether they're moving towards or away from these different component tasks. And what we observe is that there's quite a big difference between workers who made an involuntary exit from their previous job to workers whose job move was voluntary. So people making voluntary job moves are likely to move towards non-routine, cognitive, analytical jobs or jobs involving high amounts of that kind of task. And that is associated with high pay. So it looks like people making voluntary moves it's usually a positive thing. But on the other hand, people making involuntary moves, either move jobs or their previous job exit was a redundancy. They're more likely to move towards, sorry, away from non-routine cognitive, analytical jobs and non-routine persons and towards routine jobs which typically are associated with low rates of pay. So again, it's just another way of showing that those previous episodes in our economy of high rates of involuntary job move, it's another way of showing that those things are negative experiences for the works involved. And then finally, just to briefly draw out lessons for the 2020s, I've probably said enough about the understanding of economic change, but just to say that it's recently there hasn't been very much of it. The composition of our economy in terms of sectors now is broadly similar to what it was 10 years back but that definitely wasn't the case in the 70s and 80s. There are winners as well as losers from change and it's not the case that sectoral adjustment mainly relies on workers losing their jobs. Actually, natural change flows in and out can explain quite a large part of sectoral change. And then for policymakers, this really is a sort of a tentative first go at politics we'll be doing more detailed policy reports but we think that they should prepare for more change in the 2020s than we are used to. So that means sort of gearing up our skills, services our employment services to be ready for that. And then we think in terms of mitigating or managing that change is about maximizing the benefits which we think will mean helping workers make pay enhancing moves to growing sectors and worrying about the involuntary job losses which will we think probably pick up as rates of change increase. Okay, I think that was all from me. Thank you very much for bearing with me.


The inability of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC to announce the results of the Plattu Central Central District election held on February 25th is beginning to raise anxiety among residents of the area. A crew gathered that the collision of the results was stopped due to cases of overvoting and discrepancies in some of the results sheets. The PDP flat bearer for the election Honourable Hukum Gottam, while addressing newsmen, said he wondered why INEC has been unable to come up with a solution two weeks after the election was held. Gottam said all legal means would be employed by him to protect the mandate of his people. But all we saw in Pamshin was the accumulation of fictitious votes. If you look at it, we have two arms in Kalaam entirely. What they give us is revealing. It's far, far less than the number of people that voted. So that means there is overvoting entirely in Kalaam and the position of the other, the results should be constant. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Welcome to the 2015 NCHA Great American Insurance Group Summer Spectacular. We've just had the final of the five and six year old amateur division and with me is the winner John Brenngard who wrote SDP, high driven Hikapu with a score of 219. Well done John. Thank you. Now 219 has been a pretty popular score to win these events on at the moment. Lucky score? I think so, yes ma'am. I'm just trying to cut smooth and clean. So tell me, you were actually about four points ahead of second place so you obviously had a pretty strong showing. Talk us through how it went. Well, my trainer told me Scott Ray at the very beginning to just cut really smooth and slow and just hope the cows end up being slower. And they were. And so I got lucky and here I am. You were third out. You had a fairly long wait because they were big herds. Tell us how you're feeling as you're watching the rest of the cutting. I was really nervous actually. I could barely watch. That happens. Now you won almost the same event last year. Tell us about that. Well, it was on my five and six year old mare that I showed in the same class as this one and I marked 219 also and it went about the same as this one did. So what was your strategy coming into the final? Well, I knew I was probably going to have to mark a little bit bigger of a score. So we were cutting cows that may not have been the slowest, slowest ones and it ended up working out because I stayed in the middle of the pen for the most part. So tell us about this horse. She is a high drive cat out of Hicapoo. What do you like about it? Why do you think she's performed really well for you? Well, I really like her because if I can get cut I pretty much just have to sit there and hold on. So you've only recently acquired this horse four months ago. Tell us about it. Well, we got her a couple of months ago like you said and we got Brett McLaughlin trained her and Lloyd wrote her and Julie Jarmer wrote her and she's a really nice mare. Why did you choose this mare? Well, most just like I said earlier she was so easy to ride and I really got along with her. Okay, so what are the plans now with this horse? Keep showing her and do just as well as I did today. You've got a few more events even today on this horse, don't you? Yes, ma'am. I'm showing her in the next set after this one. Hopefully I'll be here again. So you've got about roughly over $70,000 in earnings which is pretty good. You're 15. What do you plan on doing with that? Well, I think right now it's going into a savings account but I'm sure it'll go to some sort of college fund. Alright, well thanks very much. Congratulations. Thank you.


How do you help somebody recognize that they potentially have dysfunctional behaviors and they don't even know it? When I separate myself and say would I treat someone I care about in this way? Would I force them to do these things in this particular way? Because you know when you take care of kids there's things you do that they want and there's things you do that they don't want.  You care for them.  So that's the best way I can think about it.  And if the answer is no then don't do it to yourself. Or if the answer is yes, then do that.


it'll perform in our environment let alone environments across California. And so we need, and the other issue with this is that battery density technology is evolving. That is how much energy you can pack into a battery. That's really where the changes have to take place. It's not gonna be over the next several years and figuring out how to add more batteries into more nooks and crannies because they don't exist. It's gonna be in that technology of how much energy you can pack into the same space. And that will give us the range that we seek in the future. Why is that important to us? It's important to us because what we don't wanna do is have dedicated fleets. Dedicated fleets in this example mean that maybe you buy so many buses that only have a range of this amount and therefore they can only run on certain runs. So in our very tight and cramped bus yard out there we have to figure out how to park certain buses over in a certain area because they have to only run on certain routes. That's a very complicated thing for us to do every morning on a pullout. If we had built a yard that had say a herringbone structure where every parking space was unique and we could always park the same bus in the same space every day, it would be a different story but that's not the yard we built in our and we shoehorn our buses into our yard today. So that's just a few examples. You've no doubt read the letter. I think we need to work with CARB to get to a good place where regulation acknowledges some of these things, gives us some outlets in order to be able to postpone the implementation without being penalized and that's recommendation I had before you. Okay, thank you. Questions? Mr. Leipold, the Ms. Matthews. Well, I don't disagree with what's in this letter and you made very good points and I also understand what CARB's trying to do. It follows a California strategy which is you set these aggressive limits and make requirements because you need the industry to move faster. They've done that with electric cars. The requirement that manufactures of, if you, I don't know exact how it works, if you manufacture a certain number of cars for sale in California, you have to have an electric vehicle and they have supported the purchase of those electric vehicles to resources. So the one point that I would think to also hammer home is that given the increased cost, the almost double what it costs for an electric bus and that the fact that the technology hopefully will be there in 11 years, that there also needs to be, CARB has to either provide or ensure provision of resources to help this transition take place because that's what we've done with the electric cars, with the electric charger networks, with what there's, and I think that the point that you make about energy provision, about working with PG&E or others to ensure that you have a rate that doesn't break the bank as well. You know, I plug in my electric car and it starts charging at 11 p.m. And it's usually fill up by seven. Those are the, that's pretty cheap. It only cost me about $25 to $30 a month to energize my car. But if you have to charge during the day, it could be three or four times as much, yes. So it becomes incredibly important. And also, there may be some part of that about rapid charging stations because if they can't get the distance, there has to be an easy way that someone can charge a bus in a quick, you know, 15, 20 minutes, bring it back up to full to get it done. I won't pretend like I know what that is, but to try to figure out both the charging pieces, the economic resources to be able to support the change, seems to be very important. Oh, that's nice. Thank you. This was a fascinating item, which I knew absolutely nothing. You might not know. This should be on. Oh, there you go. Yeah, okay. Knew pretty much nothing about this area before reading the letter. It seemed very reality-based to me, which is a good thing. Couple of questions. Is the California Air Resources Board a freestanding final entity, like Coastal Commission, what they say is what happens, or is there, what's the hierarchy? No, that's my understanding. They thought the regulation, it will be. That is it, okay. And second question is your approach reflected in this letter from generally shared by the industry, that concern? Yes. For example, CTA just in the last week communicated their letter to very similar themes that's representative of transit properties across the state, and then other transit properties are sending individual letters to. Would it help to have additional comments from other entities besides transit? Thinking like, I mean other entities that have an interest in viable transit systems. Yeah, I think similar to a grant application that couldn't hurt, just shows more support for your position. I wanna be careful to not misrepresent what we may or may not be able to accomplish. CTA, and I think they're pretty well plugged in, have been clear that their reading of the tea leaves is there will be a regulation this year, that the governor has sent down pretty much a mandate and CARB is following that. So what we're looking for is trying to get them to the process that starts Monday, trying to get them to adjust, to make adjustments where we can get adjustments. But it appears there will be a regulation. I understand that, but having it somewhere in the universe of feasibility. Mr. Puckett. I think the letter is great, if it's fine to say it. And once again, John made three points that I was gonna make, and I won't even talk about it, I agree with it. I was a student of mine, so I picked up a lot of them. Sure, about the other way. I think two other points. We have this experience now in terms of where the technology is of trying to purchase a bus that may or may not, which either may not go fast enough for us over the hill, or that it might require more charging than we thought it would or something. And that's an example of where the industry is now, the electric vehicle industry is now. Unfortunately, what worked for CARS, where there's billions of dollars at stake in producing for the market, we live in a country where transit's not the way most people get around. And the reality is, the promise of great riches from making this bus work or something may not interest the industry at the same level that the car industry responded. So whereas I think you do have to lead the regulation that sort of encouraged, they're not asking us to do this by tomorrow. I'd say not at a future point, but it's still, we're talking 11 years away or something. But the reality is, we may not be in a position to have the actual vehicles, we need to make things work the way we want them to work. I mean, even if we, I don't know, whether those incentives will be as successful as they've been in the automobile industry. So I do think it's critical that we make people understand where we're at in terms of the likelihood of being able to implement this because there'd be a huge irony if we're forced to retire buses from the road and people go back to single-pocket currency car-driving because we can't produce the best. And so you have to say, we can't get the perfect, and you end up, you don't even get better if you're in a worse situation. And I think that needs to be communicated. I think you have any more questions or comments? Another one? Well, I would just add, you know, I think what they're trying to do is California is the largest state office in the country. We have the most buses, and they're trying to use that market in order to drive the industry nationwide. And it does still come, and the other thing I just wanted to also add, car can adopt regulations, and they're kind of the final say. The legislature, though, could pass bills to influence the car decision. So if they've come up with something, if they come up with something, the legislature could write a bill and say, not practical. And I believe that part of the cap and trade to go to the legislature, there was some, there was some accompanying legislation to change some of the car regulations. We'd rather them get it right for the first time, but that is a way to lead them through something. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, I'd just like to add, this, and the addition of acronyms goes on and on and on. It seems like it, all of this. But I think two things, flexibility and reality are two things that we're really trying to get in following what we all want to have happen for these public rights of ridership. So I appreciate the comments that were made by others. Thank you. Just a couple of closing points. At the last executive committee a couple of weeks ago, CTA, we did talk about the legislative approach and they may try to find a sort of a bill to introduce to try to keep something running in parallel. But at the end of the day, what we felt is that the governor wants this. Carb is doing this because the governor wants it and even if a bill were to pass, you've got to get the governor to sign it and that might be the problem with that. But we still think that trying to run something in parallel to hold their feet to the fire might. Yeah. Well, it's an 11 year requirement and the governors are only around for one, so. That's a good point right there. Just real quick final note, I want to acknowledge that our team has come a long ways with Electric. Remember, we do nothing about Electric. It's recently is just a couple of years ago and our team really, which is sort of Ciro and Eddie and Aaron and Barrow and a lot of their support staff like Tom Hultner have come a long ways to learn about this and get up to speed and this letter isn't just me putting a bunch of stuff and writing, it's that team putting this down as a result of what we've learned in this very short period of time. Thank you. Okay, so do we need direction on this? Move the way that we accept and follow this. Okay, so first and second, all in favor? Aye. Oppose, abstain, this unanimously passes. Okay, our next thing on the item, the time has come for me to pass the gavel to the next, nope, Jesus. I'm sorry. The entire day, I am doing odds and evens. Like, Alex, you're on again. All right, this is. I've been trying to get through this meeting, it's been a long time. He did it himself, he's done it. But we gave you December off, remember that. So 27 is your annual. That's not how you use that. That is true. That's your annual calendar year, now calendar year, 18, state and federal legislative program. As you read that or read that, you notice that the themes are pretty much the similar as prior years. Protecting revenue, looking for new revenues, protecting against unfunded, particularly costly mandates. You see in the report that on the state level, we had a really good year, SB1 passed. So that was good, AD113 blew past, which was really good to protect the STA money from being distributed further and decreasing the amount of dollars that come to us. On the federal side, I have to admit, I struggled working with Chris in order to put a couple of bullets down that we did, simply because we have the administration that we haven't had really much attention paid to transit through this administration, at least through the calendar year, 2017. On that note, we do have this sort of secret document about Trump's infrastructure program that got revealed nationwide in the last week. Give some hint about what he's thinking. He seems to be modifying some of his approaches, not so much in the 3P public-private partnership arena. But what is distressing is when it comes to the transit side of the business, I think, Mike, maybe you talked earlier about us being able to go in historically for funding and maybe the feds would fund 80%. Today, that's kind of migrated into 50%, for example, our 53.39 in order to try to be competitive. We did 100% match, right? 50% us, 50% them. He's proposing that the federal government participate at a 20% level. So it just gets worse. So our trip, I think our trip to DC is going to be important to share, Mr. Chair. And I hope that you'll talk about that today, too, and identify the members that would go to Washington in April or May. If you wouldn't mind jotting these dates down, just working with Chris in the last couple of weeks, we think that something in the range of April 9th, the week of April 9th, or the week of April 16th, or the week of May 7th, or the week of May 14th would be good weeks to go to DC. We'll probably, we'll definitely wanna meet with the FTA again. We may need to have a discussion with the FTA about our $3 million LONO grant and the poor performance of the BYD buses and try to figure out an alternate strategy so that we can make sure that we keep that money here and still have it go to electric buses. The final note that I would make is if you look at page 27-4, you often hear about self-help. I think that pie chart really talks a lot about self-help. As a matter of fact, if you look at the operating cost, which is what that pie chart represents, 71.5% of the cost of operating this agency in effect for self-help. It is our old in our new sales tax initiative. It is the passenger fairs and it is the advertising and leases. We are truly an example of a county that has a lot of self-help. That's on the operating side. It's a struggle on the capital side, as you know, and that's where we run into the rub with the federal government that's looking for self-help more so on the capital side these days. Mr. Chair, that's my introduction to the item. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, I guess while we're here, we've tried to check to see who would be interested in going this year with us to DC. I know that there's, so we have one, two, three. How many go?  Raise your hands, Mike. Chase, I mean. The dates won't make any difference. Yeah, the dates won't make any difference for a lot of us, so. It says it's Santa. Yeah, so the same. Last year's four plus Cynthia and Ed, and then we'll work on the dates because I think that'll affect a lot of us. Well, just linking the previous item of this item. There's the federal government could play a role in promoting a low-emission, zero-emission vehicles. And we had, we did have an administration that used to do that. And I would encourage everybody to look at the New York Times today, Paul Krugman's column, which is called The Economics of Dirty Old Men. And it has nothing to do with porn stars, but it, it's just this administration's subservience to the fossil fuel companies at the expense of everything else. I mean, they, they, they proposed that the rest of the electricity grid subsidize nuclear power because, because it didn't work. But just the other day when Trump put a terrace on solar panels, it's gonna be like a loss of jobs and stopping an industry that's, that is actually taking off, right? There are more jobs in renewable energy now than there is in fossil fuel. And it's, it's not, it's not, it doesn't make realistic sense in terms of policy. It's really adhering to the donor's wishes and it's not in the interests of the country. And so that, to expect the federal government at least in the next three years, two years, whatever that is is gonna help us out with our electric bus. It's probably not realistic. Thank you. All right, so, can I get a question? I have a question. Oh, question, okay. I noticed in this state legislative agenda, the first bullet is protecting SB1. And I noticed, we all know there is a statewide organization now. I think it's a protect transportation funding I got the name more or less right. I've recently got some information for them with the two part agenda. One is to oppose the repeal of SB1 and the other is to support the passage a ballot measure on the June ballot to strengthen the use of transportation funds for transportation. So I didn't see, maybe that's implied, but I would hope by this action that we could officially join that statewide campaign. Absolutely. It's consistent. Thank you. So if I could go ahead and move the recommended action. First is Cynthia, second by Mike. All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Stain, this passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Now. Now. The time has come for me to say goodbye. I'm just kidding. So anyways, this is the time that we're gonna be taking nominations for our next, well, a lot of positions. So from board chair all the way down to vice chair to our committees, to the RTC, to the SCCIC, to the SCCRTC, there's a lot of positions that need to be filled. So I don't know if anyone came prepared with a filled out sheet already or sheets. Or I mean, the reality is that you can just open up the nominating and then come with your slates next month when we actually did the election. I mean, if that's more, I'm efficient for you. Yeah, so we can just open it up and then come back prepared next week, next month. So you moved to open it. I moved, we opened it. Okay. Exactly. Okay. So my only comment is, what would be helpful if people told you about the positions they might be interested in, just to sort of start and work during, not today necessarily, but before we get them through the next meeting? Yeah, I don't mind doing it. If someone wants to come to me and I could put a slate together and that could be one slate I can enter. You might come together. Maybe they'll often are all different slates and that's fine. But I just think maybe, just to help the process of everybody is not just silent until we get into the next meeting and you have to make up what you think would be good or something as an efficient slate. So I would make that suggestion, if you want to be in more of these positions, committees, I'll let you know. So you've got something to start with. Right. That'd be good because there's a lot, as you guys can see, that need to be filled. So if you guys want to come to me, I can start filling in the positions. Maybe some of you don't want to be on some of the committees anymore and you want to switch committees. It's all up to you guys. Just let me know. So should we just take this sheet, put our name on it and circle it once again? Yeah, no. Yeah, and then if you just want to circle it and then let me know. Yeah, it's both sides. It's two-sided, don't forget. So there's positions on both sides and then I can put together the entire election. All right, so that's been first and seconded. Do I, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstained? Clearly passes. It is, it will be open. It is now open. Okay. Number 29. So this is Alex. Consideration of appointment of Kevin Andrews and reappointment of Veronica Elcea to the Metro Advisory Committee. LC. LC. Sorry, I was putting the left. No. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstained? You want to remember to ask the public if there's anything that you want to say? Oh, public, is there anybody that would like to comment on these two people? Great. Did I just take a vote already? Abstained? Nope. This unanimous passes. All right. Number 30. Consideration of revising. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the first and the second on that. Rock and chase. Thank you. Okay. Consideration of revising the Santa Cruz Civic Improvement Corporation, SECIC bylaws to change the annual meeting date and appoint one director to serve as the SECIC board member, Mr. Clifford. So briefly, I think the one board member choice can be handled through the process you just laid out for the previous nomination committees and whatnot. Other than that, this is a recommendation for a minor revision to the bylaws for the SECIC. Right now, today, you come back in February, you vote on that new member, and then you instantly move into a meeting for about three seconds and then you close it and you complete your business for a year. This just recommends that you push that annual meeting out to March and just uncollider it. Okay, great. Cube. Board. Move the recommendation for simplicity. First and second. All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Abstain? This passes. Alex again. Okay, you already covered Congressman Panetta, so just one item, the APTA Universities Conference is going to happen here in the region. It is going to, they searched high and low, looked at hotels all across the county that could accommodate the room nights and the space they needed, and they ended up signing a deal with the Scotts Valley Hilton. So that conference will be here. My staff is working real hard on that with APTA. The conference will be June 23 through June 26. I hope you will put that on your calendar and save some time because you may want to come and participate in that and we may want to ask you to participate in different parts of the speaker. Is that the conference I went to last year? No. Okay. You went to the board members' conference. Oh, is that, when is that one? I want to stay at the same time. Because I remember it was summer-ish. I've drawn to these in the past and they're really interesting. The properties that share a lot of some of the issues and problems and learn a lot when we go to things. I think this was important for the base for us getting that special stick money, the special transit, Small transit intensive city. Yeah, we want it from hip to stick. Stick, yeah, whatever. It was like crazy. I really recommend you look at this seriously because it's an actually interesting conference where you learn some stuff that's useful in our district. And we should point out that Larry Peggler has been really involved in this. Great, presenting university. Thank you, Larry. Oh, okay. Anybody else? Yes. Yes, Matthews. I also sit on the board of Visit Santa Cruz, which is a local visitor promotion entity. And if you're not in touch with them, I suggest you get in touch because they can give you lots of material to make a great visit to Santa Cruz County. Okay. What is it called again? Visit Santa Cruz, I'll give you the info. This is great. Any other comments, questions? Alrighty, thank you for that report. We did this one in three hours. Thank you guys. It was really thick board packet. So, Alex, would you like to give us a, do you have a question? No, sir. Oh, Alex, would you like to give us a review of the items to be discussed in close session? Well, this is the first time I think I've ever introduced a closed session. This will be a closed session for public employee performance evaluation per cent to government code 549571. Did I need to say anything more? No. Good enough, okay. Public comment. And you are just going to be returning back. Okay, so we will, oh. Return back, but nothing to report out. Clearly it's new to Alex. Any comments from the board? I mean, from the public? Okay, with that, we are going to, our next meeting is in the beautiful city of Watsonville. And we will see you there at 9 a.m. on February 23rd. Thank you. That's how you push through a meeting. There you go. That's good. That was supposed to be four hours. Yeah, right.