 People have moved out of agriculture into other jobs in the United States in from about 1960 to 2015. The number of people in manufacturing moved from about 25 percent of the economy down to 10 percent. So we've seen shifts like this before. We've gotten through them. Our panel is going to talk about what that is like and how we do that well though. So let me just begin by introducing the panel. On my left Julie Gabauer is the global business lead at Willis Towers Watson. Adam Grant is a best-selling offer and a professor at Wharton of organizational psychology. Bill Thomas is the global chairman of KPMG International. Guy Ryder is the director general of the international labor union, labor organization, my apologies. And Kristi Hoffman is in general of UNI Global. So welcome all you my global union. So welcome all of you. Adam start us off. Is this something we should be worried about? Yeah, absolutely we should be worried, but I don't think we should be panicked, right? There were people in the 1800s who were terrified about all the horse and buggy driver jobs that were going to disappear. Reality is cars created lots of new jobs along with eliminating lots of old jobs. I think the same thing is going to happen with job displacement today. If you look at the world economy and what jobs are growing fastest, there are two categories that are really picking up steam. One is STEM jobs, of course. So in the U.S., five of the fastest 10 growing jobs are actually STEM jobs. And STEM jobs are? Software developers. We have huge demand expected for solar installers, wind turbine engineers, people who work with science and technology. The other half though are service and care jobs. So the majority of GDP and jobs in the industrialized world is actually the service sector, not the knowledge sector. So home health aides, nurses, teachers, huge demand. And so I think those jobs are really hard to automate. I did love watching the Jetsons growing up, but I don't think we're going to have a home health robot anytime soon. And so that sounds great. If we can all train ourselves to be software developers, we'd be in great shape. Christie though, we have a lot of people who've worked for a long time in very specific jobs. Retraining is difficult. These are often jobs that require high education. What's the responsibility of corporations to help people transition to this? Well, my organization represents 20 million workers in the service industry. So many of the occupation that you've described home health aides, but also in the retail sector and the finance. And what we see is that the jobs aren't really disappearing. They're changing. So the specifics of the jobs are changing. And the corporations have a responsibility to give them on the job training to go through that process of upskilling and reskilling. And that, for the most part, that on the job training is taking place. But there will be some that are left behind that can't be upskilled or reskilled where the jobs disappear. And we see that quite a bit in the finance sector right now, finance, banks, and insurance. And here we think we need tripartite solutions, really. There will be people who are displaced. And so the question of unions, business, and governments coming together to have labor market policies that make sure that as people navigate the change, their support for appropriate reskilling has mapped out what are the skill needs going to be involving industrial, the employers to be part of that process. But we think the best way forward is a tripartite lifelong learning approach to be worked out involving all three. And there will be need for that. And corporations should take their responsibility. And what is that responsibility, Julie? Yeah, look, I think that if you step back, there was research released this week that said there will be job displacement. 10% of the jobs or so are going to go away. 90% to Christie's point are going to be different, interacting with machines, whether it's robots or AI. And organizations need to prepare their employees to do so. And look at the tasks that are going to be no longer part of a job, the new tasks that need to be incorporated. I think organizations today do invest in their workforce. It's an important thing to do. It's a competitive advantage for organizations around the world. And I think as organizations try to put together value propositions that distinguish themselves so that they can get the right talent that they need, they should start thinking about providing the opportunity for training and development, perhaps even as an employee benefit around the world. And in the 1950s and 60s, the United States and many other countries, it's still the case, corporations really felt a responsibility to employees who came on. The idea was if you do a good job, you will be with us for life. We will continue to retrain you. Then especially in the United States over the past 30 to 40 years, we've had a big shift to what might be described as shareholder capitalism. The only thing that matters is the bottom line. Your career is your problem. We will be happy to have your services when they benefit us. But the moment they don't, goodbye, you can work somewhere else. Guy and Bill, do you want to weigh in on what, as we shift to this and as the world, as we become much more focused on stakeholder capitalism, where every company that I've heard speak here is saying that its customers are asking you, what are you doing for the world, not just your shareholders? What is the responsibility? Talk to that. And how do we take people from, sorry, your job is going to be automated into this new future. Should I go first? Yeah. I think the key to this debate, I mean, we're all agreed that there's going to be an enormous need for rescaling, getting people from the jobs where they are today to where they're going to be tomorrow. I think we've got over the end of work thesis. I mean, I don't know what the people here think, but I think we can put that one aside. I don't think either we're going to a time of chronic job scarcity, but we're certainly facing up to the challenges of getting people from where the jobs are today to wherever they're going to be tomorrow. And as you say, to a great extent, we don't know that yet. Now, skills and reskilling is the key to all of this. In the report on the future of work that my organization has just put out, we're suggesting that there be established an entitlement to lifelong learning. And the word entitlement right is really important. Now, the question is how do you operationalize that aspiration? And that goes to your question. It seems to me that this is both a public policy question. So the public authorities, governments are involved in this, but it's also a responsibility of the private sector. And I think the question is, how do you make those two things connect? And I think you're right. In past decades, some of us would observe, one third of employers in our survey work has said, despite high levels of unemployment, they cannot find the people with the skills that they want. And that has led some to say, well, this is like going to the supermarket and picking off that product off the shelf, that perfectly skilled worker that we want. And it can also mean actually divesting oneself of the obligation for skills formation in the company itself. And the more the notion of the dissolution of a long-term relationship, be it in the form of an employment contract or something else, between the company and the employee is called into question, the value proposition of training up somebody you may be moving on pretty quickly is called into question as well. So I think for me, the key question is lifelong learning, how to make it happen, what is the responsibility of government, public policy, what is the responsibility of the private sector? And between brackets, what about that worker? What responsibility does she or he have in all of this as well? Excellent questions. Bill, what's the answer? If you answer, Bill. Well, I absolutely agree that it has to be the responsibility of all of us. And I'll just use a simple example. I mean, we hire about 50,000 people a year. And if you go back and you said, okay, 25 years ago, those 50,000 people would have been 98% accounting majors. And today, that might be max 50%. And if you think about the evolution of where our workforce is going, whether that is the needs of our clients, whether that is the recognition that artificial intelligence, some of the disruption from technology that's going to have on our workforce. The truth of the matter is, I'm not going to wait for a government response. I have an incredible team that know our organization, they know our values, they know what we stand for, they know what we care about. And the investment that we can make in re-skilling them doesn't, I mean, pales, I think, in comparison to starting from scratch on the culture that you lose. Now, you can't do it across the board in a perfectly simplistic one-in-one-out way. But as I look forward, I think, one, we're already doing it to a certain extent. Two, you know, the pace of change is increasing. But to quote, I think it's Bill Gates, I mean, I believe very strongly, we always overestimate the impact in the three years and we underestimate the impact in 10. And that's the mindset that I'm sort of taking to this. We have to very, very carefully understand where our world is going, how it's going to impact our workforce, and hold on by re-skilling and other initiatives to our team. And I mean, started about of the 225,000 people we have around the world, 75% of them are millennials. And if you want to attract the very best and retain the very best of that generation, you better, one, understand what it means to be purpose-led and what you stand for, what you care about. And number two, you better build an inclusive and diverse workforce where everybody gets to bring their whole self to work every day. And I mean, we could have the whole panel discussion about that, but it's all integrated. It's not a separate and distinct approach. It has to be completely integrated. We survey millions of employees around the world every year. And to build on your point, the things that we find are at the top of the list around engagement and retention, include learning and development every single time. And, Christie, you represent, as you said, millions of workers in retail and other service industries. In the United States, there is a game that companies play. They advertise jobs and then they say, oh, we can't find anybody with the skills that we need. And the comeback to that is, well, why don't you pay more for the jobs that don't actually require the skills at this level and then see how much demand you get? Because always wages, the low wages are blamed on the fact, well, that people just aren't educated enough. When the corporations are rich, maybe they could pay a little bit better. How much of this is at the core of this whole discussion about jobs of the future and reskilling? Is this, we have jobs, we just need to pay better? I mean, low wages are an enormous problem in the U.S. as they are in other places in Western Europe. But I think the truth is, when you look at the private sector in the U.S., especially in retail, to single that out, and in finance as well and banking, the banking sector, there are very, very, very small number of unions. So the sort of leveling influence of collective bargaining isn't there in most parts of the U.S. And collective bargaining is one of the ways that we see, especially in Europe but elsewhere, the ability to really negotiate around training opportunities to lift wages, time off for training, that's a big thing that a lot of our unions are negotiating right now. It's paid time off for training. Apart from sort of a comprehensive program that you could have at the government policy level, as I said before, a tripartite program, but even at the local company level, that would be a common feature of a lot of collective agreements in Europe. And in the U.S., you don't see that in some of the low paid service jobs. So whether, I'm sure the people are out there, but if you're offering a minimum of 12 hours a week for someone to work at a store, because you can use an algorithm to determine when exactly you need them, and so maybe you're not offering them any minimum hours. I mean, there's a whole huge range of problems for the low paid service industry that need to be addressed in order to make those jobs more attractive. And Adam, who should be worried? So two-thirds of us are worried, and yet what we've already established, which is what all the research suggests, is that actually, even though maybe 50% of job activities could be automated, only 5% or 10% of jobs are fully automatable. So in fact, this might just be, hey, we get a little more time from a smartphone or whatever that we can invest in something else. So, but who should actually be worried? Well, I think we have to start by making a list of the jobs that are fully automatable. And I think we're making progress toward that. Basic reporting of facts, for example. I read a couple months ago, a side-by-side news report by a human and by a computer of a sports game. And I could not tell which one was the human and which was the computer. Neither can most people, which is terrifying. And not good for your industry, I suppose, Henry. Good for fake news. Lots of people would be very pleased if journalists were replaced by bots. I think we should think about, though, what skills are essentially closed as opposed to open problems. And interestingly, a lot of the work that lawyers do is increasingly automatable. And so if you're a lawyer, one of the things I would say is, you shouldn't be worried that your job is going to go away, but to the point we've already discussed, you should be worried that your job is going to change. You're going to spend much more time litigating, much less time filing briefs, for example. And so I think that's the kind of worry I'd be focused on. That's good, though, if you're a lawyer. I mean, there's no more interesting in some ways. You know, the skills that we're seeing are in our research and has been validated here this week that are most important for organizations in the future. Of course, digital skills, which you talked about to start with the STEM jobs. But there are also a whole set of human skills that are going to be incredibly important for the future. And I think, Bill, you mentioned the interpersonal skills, the ability to interact with clients, customers, patients. Also, global skills, thinking, being able to operate virtually with people from all different cultures. And when it comes back to digital, it's not just knowing how to code. It's about how to use technology and how to make decisions about when an investment in technology is going to be a good thing. And then complex problem solving, agile thinking. I don't think computers are going to take away that job skill or replace that job skill anytime soon. And I would say, and I think Adam's point is right, what we tend to do is go immediately to a simple statement that this is going to take this job away. And I think what we need to do is recognize one, like what you cannot take away is, and I think to Julie's point, like the human piece of it. I'll give you a really good example. You can automate, I mean, a huge chunk of our business, you think about auditing, a huge chunk of our business is going to get disrupted by automation. And that is the part that says, does the right side equal the left side? Yes or no? You cannot automate whether that is legal. You cannot automate whether that is ethical. You cannot automate whether that is sort of moral. And the skepticism, the sense of judgment that's applied, that I think is where the job of the existing team is going to go. And then we tend to underestimate the job creation. So in that process I just described, now all of a sudden, how do I know that the client's algorithm is right? How do I know that my algorithm is right? How do I know that my regulator's algorithm is right? And the number of jobs that will be created, again, making sure that the team is skilled to do that new task, it might not be one for one, but it's certainly a lot bigger than simply these are gone and that's the gap. Yeah, I think some of the numbers that are out there actually can sometimes be very unhelpful. You see these extraordinary high percentages out there of the numbers of jobs that can be automated. Something that gets lost along the way is what technically can be automated, could be automated, that's one figure. The other thing is how many are likely to because what is technologically feasible is not necessarily economically a good deal. So these numbers are out there. They scare the living daylights out of people. You talk about this anxiety. They probably read one of these studies from one university or even from this place. I don't think it helps. And the second thing is with unwarranted precision, totally unbacked, in my view at least, by any rationale, people say there will be 54,342 jobs destroyed by 25th of January, whatever date. How do we know? I mean there are too many what ifs around all of that. And one of the what ifs has to do with the policies that we intend to apply to these processes. The notion that there is a future of work out there waiting for us and it's going to happen to us five or 10 years down the road is a big mistake. It's wrong. It's also actually induces or runs the risk of inducing paralysis in the people who should be making a difference. We are the people who are going to decide not those robots effectively. Isn't there another factor which is something could be automated, done very well, economically viable, but if the customer is not going to accept it or the patient isn't going to accept the diagnosis from a machine, then will it really change the future or will human interventions still be required? I was surprised yesterday and I went to a session on manufacturing best practices and with all manufacturers in the room, in part for me. And one person said it's much easier to teach someone who really understands manufacturing process and how to operate a machine, to teach them digital skills than to take someone who has digital skills and teach them how to operate the machine and do the manufacturing process. So, you know, teaching digital skills across the manufacturing industry. I was really pleasantly surprised by that. That's not the image that's projected out there. The image is all these manufacturing jobs could be digitized or else we need a whole nother, we need all the young people who are digital natives. So how do we deal with the 50 year old person who doesn't have the skills and the consensus there was, you know, we really have to upscale them. So let's talk more about policies that can help with this. One of the things, one of the big fights in the United States politically is always how much should the government do, how much should be on you. This goes to the question that was raised earlier is if you are a low paid retail service worker, hey, is it on you to go figure out something that is better paid or should the government be helping out in that? And one of the very specific questions that comes up is the portability of benefits. In the United States right now, usually healthcare is tied to your job. It's incredibly scary to leave that. We don't have a good backstop for governments. It's very different in Europe and other countries. How important is that as we go forward? And what other policies could government put into place that in the United States or elsewhere we might be able to actually make happen? I think that's why you need active labor market institutional policies to navigate these. It's not going to be the same answer in every country. We need unions again in the United States. Well, that's obviously for me, yes, no question. But apart from that, I think the issue is, yes, you do need that, but when I said a tripartite solution, I think you need everybody at the table to figure out what kinds of solutions could work. Now, I know when you use the word tripartite, no one ever ever thinks about that for the U.S. and coming from the U.S., I mean, it's sort of like, well, that's a weird thing that we don't do. But it should be considered if even on a local level that the idea of figuring out a process where there is a right to lifelong learning, but that has to be attached with time off for training or what's the benefit scheme. The whole package of stuff needs to be really tailored to each country for sure, but also individual, you know, industries, for example. So I think that's it. Perhaps we can look at what works really well already in terms of public-private interaction on skills formation. We're sitting in a country which does dual education brilliantly, you know, where there is a partnership between private industry and public policy and indeed the social partners to make apprenticeships work extraordinarily well. It's a great proposition as a matter of public policy. It's a pretty good, I'd say, great proposition for the workers. That's seen very well on that side of the table, and it's a great proposition for business. I mean, the studies I've seen out to Zurich is that for those Swiss companies which actually do apprenticeships. And what is that for those of us who aren't so familiar with this? Yeah, I just just want to, so I mean, the Swiss system, a company that does three-year apprenticeships in Switzerland on a pure cost-benefit analysis gets a 5% return on the investment. Sorry, a 7% return for a four-year apprenticeship. It's down to five. So it's a business proposition and businesses do this to form the people they need for their businesses and to keep them, and they want to keep them afterwards. So what does it mean? I've got family experience. Kid leaves school, you know, maybe 15, 16, and spends thereafter weeks divided up or successive weeks working in the company or going back to class from education and obtaining qualifications which are then recognized portable in the country and of very high quality. It works and it works very, very well. And you have to ask why it works so well here. It works less well in other places. One is, well, maybe it hasn't been tried, but you know, in the difficult years after 2018 Europe, when Europe introduced a youth employment guarantee, you know, there was a lot of efforts made to take the great experiences of Switzerland, you could add Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, some of the Nordic countries, and sort of transplant them in other countries, which were suffering from extraordinary high levels of youth unemployment. It wasn't very easy. It wasn't very easy. Why? Lots of thought has gone into the explanations. One is the institutionality did not exist. These things have to be very well organized, accepted, and regulated, and everybody has to know what their part of the deal is, and that just isn't present in other places. So there's a cultural institutional embedment that has to be put together in these things. And just to understand it very practically, when I become or I take an apprenticeship, is the assumption that I will be hired if I do well? Yes, it is. Well, I don't think as a country, I mean, I'd have to stand to be corrected. There's no contractual obligation in that sense, but the company undertakes this process because they want that person at the end of the training process. So yes, in practice, the answer is the question. Is this somewhat similar to programs in the United States, where when you come out of school, you might have a two-year program and then maybe you go back to business school or something like that? It sounds like there's a key education piece in the apprenticeship. I'm a Canadian, so I can't speak for the US, but I'll say this. There's no doubt that, and I'm sure it's the same in the US, that organizations will absolutely provide, whether that's internships or this summer for graduates, there's a very competitive process. I would argue it has far less to do with this issue than it does to be one of, how do we get the very best and brightest that we possibly can at the earliest possible time? And if anything, that kind of works against this because it goes backwards. But let's come back to the tripartite solution, because I actually think the policy issue I get, and I think your point about benefits is a big one, and it has, to Chrissy's point, it has different issues around the world. But if you go to the employer and you think about this, so you have a millennial generation that makes up 65% of the workforce within the next five years, 35% today. You have a desire for variety from that generation and an opportunity for them to want to reskill several times. I actually think lifelong learning and the commitment and the investment to lifelong learning is going to become a competitive advantage for an employer to try and ensure that they attract those individuals for as long as possible in maybe a world where, whether it's a gig workforce, whether it's the sort of the situation within a specific country, where the option of having somebody join an organization and be there 20 years later is a far lower probability tomorrow than it was 20 years ago. In an effort to combat that from a cultural perspective, I think this is going to be an investment that's going to be made by more and more and more organizations in a competitive way. There's an interesting example. Starbucks recently partnered with Arizona State University and offered to all of its employees the opportunity for them to take online courses or pursue an online degree. And they had a big uptake, no cost to the employees. What happened in the end is quite a number of individuals took courses and gained degrees. Online degrees in the United States at this point are not differentiated from on-campus degrees. So all of these individuals have new degrees, could walk out the door. The retention rates among these employees is higher than the ones who haven't participated and the majority of them have had the opportunity for a promotion in a shorter period of time than they would have otherwise. And Starbucks is just an example of the payoff of an investment. And Starbucks is paying for this. Yes. And is there any study on do they get a return out of it? Is it what is improving the retention? I would imagine that if it improves the retention just a bit that there would be a return and increases the engagement of employees as well. But I don't have the specific answer. In the U.S. there are 11,000 Starbucks employees who started college but didn't finish. And so that opportunity to complete their education is really meaningful. At the same time, I worry a lot that the education is not giving their employees the skills that they need. The college degree is a certification. It's a certification that you went to school. It's not a certification that you have the capabilities that an employer needs. I think way too many schools and universities are still teaching students how to cram knowledge into their heads as opposed to teaching them the skills that they need to figure out how to learn. I also worry a lot that we're not teaching any collaboration at all. Julie, you brought this up earlier. I've watched my classroom year after year and I know what this has happened to none of you. But I assign a group paper to be written and inevitably just one person writes it and no one else does anything. Which is not exactly what you want in your workplaces. And so a couple years ago, I decided to try a little experiment and I said, look, I actually want to give students some practice in real collaboration knowing that's such a critical part of their future lives at work. And so I told them I had a final exam and I said, for the multiple choice section, it's going to be extremely difficult. The one question you don't know the answer to, you can write down the name of a classmate who you think knows the answer. And if they get it right, you get the points too. Students had always studied completely independently. They felt like they were competing against each other. The moment I announced this, and it affects less than 1% of their final exam grade, which is less than 30% of their total grade, they immediately started a group me where the entire class was coordinating and collaborating, sharing notes, teaching each other who knew what. And the entire classes average went up 3% from that. And I think it's a very small step, but I think we have a responsibility to do more to teach students how to collaborate. Adam, you bring up the point about accreditation and knowledge. That's what colleges, universities, provide, you know, teach. Most of the courses are just about knowledge, not about skills, not about attitude either, the collaboration notion. And we as employers hire people based on, you mentioned before, accounting majors. So the knowledge they have not necessarily the skills and other employers with whom they've worked that potentially would build up their career. We don't have a common lexicon related to skills in country to country. And I think that could be very useful. All right, well, let's put this out there because this is such a hot button issue in my house. I want to hear a couple of you weigh in. My wife is a liberal arts professor. I watch what my kids are learning through school. And I say, oh, I remember geometry. That was horrible. Trigonometry was worse. And here's the thing, you just don't need it. I've been a professional for 30 years. I haven't used any of it. So if you don't like it, like, don't do it. And I watch my wife completely wins and say, we should be opening their minds and teaching them things. It sounds like we have a consensus here, but in fact, we shouldn't bother with that. We should actually just teach skills. Collab? No? No. I'm more like a wife though. Okay. All right. I don't need college yet. So I'll jump in here. It's a very real example. So 30 years ago when I joined the firm, I was the only student that they hired who wasn't a B.com accountant. So I have an undergrad degree in bioorganic chemistry. I didn't know a debit from a credit when I started. And believe me, three days into my job while I was still looking for the credits where all the debits were, it was clear and obvious that I didn't have any clue what I was doing. But I would say, I tell you that because organizations, they can teach people the hard skills, but they can't teach them the base fundamental character of the human being that they're hiring. And I would say we've come a long way from those days, all organizations, but I think that part of it is not going to change. If you said to me, could I go back and redo my education to take a B.com accounting? I would say no, because I believe fundamentally what university taught me was how to think and how to critique and how to analyze. And I got that from my chemistry degree and some people get it from another degree. And here I am, 30 years later, I'm an accountant. I think there is a person in the circle who underestimates the value of geometry. I got lost walking into dinner last night. Google Maps showed me a few different routes and I vaguely remembered that A squared equals C squared and found the shortest path accordingly. I value it, but I collaborate. I'm glad that other people can take care of the geometry for me. I think, though, that more generally, to me, it's time to revisit what knowledge and skills we're teaching. So it's a pretty arbitrary decision that we're going to do calculus, but we're not going to do statistics. I think that every school and university should be teaching critical thinking and logic, should be teaching media literacy. You could probably make a list of a whole bunch of capability areas that are critical in a world now that's very different from the world in which most core curricula were set. So I think we should just have a conversation about what knowledge and skills are relevant, not just throw every old skill out the window. Chrissy, you were also jumping out of your chair. No, I agree with him. I agree with critical thinking and I do think finding your way through calculus is part of that process of developing your brain. That's all. But I also think the bigger question, we're really kind of talking about university level courses here, but there are a lot of non-college bound or workers out there who might get left behind. And I think a bigger issue that is also adult education in general, it's really hard to develop that culture of learning. The stats, the OECD stats are pretty low. I think what is it, 7% of adults over 30 are involved in any, and it depends really by country, Norway being the highest, where there is a longer culture and emphasis put on adult learning. And I do think that part of that upskilling, there's on the job, which is a different environment, but for those where it's not on the job, I think there's a lot of work to do in that space. Because even in Singapore where they've created a program, I can't remember the name, maybe God knows it, but where everybody over 25 gets an account of $400 for training of any kind, piano lessons, gardening, no matter what, because they're trying to get people into the habit of adult education. And then if you want to get upskilled, you get 90% of the cost of your training reimbursed, but they're having a low uptake on it just because it's not necessarily something that we've promoted or had the resources and made people can't take time off work. But I think there's that issue, not just about what do we need to teach university students, but there's a whole another level of how do we deal with adult education that we need to address. And picking up on this, and this will be the last question or guide, sorry. No, no, all yours. Now, just to pick up on your point, it's a really, really interesting question. Why is it that despite the very clear signals that are being transmitted by labor markets, people still make educational choices, which do not rationally optimize their labor market prospects in the future. And they continue to do it. And lots of people bemoan it and say their parents should be more directive or this is just the easy option. It suggests to me that actually people want something in addition out of their educational experience, and that should be respected. So I'm not saying, you know, this is what we need in the future in the real world. And this is what you should study. But there's a certain relativity involved in all of this. And it needs to be understood and not discounted. And the other part of it is just the amount of time. If we say that, okay, the purpose of all primary and secondary education plus colleges to teach somebody how to think so the corporation can then train them how to do whatever the job is, is it conceivable that we could spend less time training people how to think? And so the question to all to all of you is, do you have to go to college? Because in the United States, unless you are a genius entrepreneur who's going to drop out a company worth billions of dollars, you do basically have to go to college. That is, if you want to be in the non threatened portion of the labor pool. But can corporations help teach people how to think? Is that in terms of the corporate education? And ultimately, do we all need to go to college? I throw it out there. Well, look, I mean, I'm not an expert in this by any stretch, but I will tell you, it is not inconceivable to me, and there's lots of literature out there on this is not inconceivable to me that if you if you think about where where the where we're going, I mean, I mean, my three teenage kids, I mean, they're learning and the way I learn totally different. So accessibility, you know, using technology to disrupt the way people learn like to that point, the content and the skills that is available. And we should make it available very easily, very efficiently and very cost effectively. And then if to your second point, then employers and or workplaces would pick up the sort of the critical thinking aspect of it. You know, then depending on the job, you've got a you've got a route there that makes sense. And the only thing I would say is, depending upon the degree or the job that you're really trying to source, you might not be able to get sufficient, you know, you might not be able to get sufficient training around critical thinking for that specific job through that process I just outlined. But for a vast majority of the jobs that I'm talking about, that I think are heavily sort of at risk of displacement, you know, that then I think that is a process that will evolve for sure. Yeah, I don't I don't think we're we live in a world where degrees are going to be essential much longer. But I think that employers need to step up. So I watched something really interesting happen at Warby Parker, the billion dollar online eyeglass retailer, their chief technology officer was really frustrated that he could not attract enough software engineers. They're in New York, lose a lot of talent to Silicon Valley. And so one day he was struggling with a technical technical problem, and he went to his executive assistant, and he said, Hey, do you think you might want to do some some research on this and see if you can figure it out? She had just expressed some passing curiosity about coding. And three days later, she came to him with the solution. And he said, Okay, we're going to retrain you, you're going to be a software engineer. He's now done that a second time. And if I were running a company, the first thing I would do is I'd make a list of all the skills that I can't fill from the outside. I'd create a set of job descriptions and then some training programs internally. And I'd let my own employees sign up to teach them as well as to take them so that I don't have to move linearly through one ladder, but I can actually rotate. Great. Okay, let's take some questions. And we actually have a video question from a young recent graduate of a culinary school, I believe in the United States to kick us off. Hello, my name is Raymond Delucci, and I'm a graduate from ProStart, a national culinary arts and restaurant management program for young high school students. My question for the panel today is how do we as chefs stay ahead of the curve with items such as Uber Eats, automation and technology coming into our kitchens? Now more than ever, our kitchens are getting more technologically advanced and more automated. And how do we stay successful in this industry and grow with the changes coming ahead for the next 10 to 20 years? Thank you so much. Anyone want that? Who's going to go for that one? It's a case for lifelong learning. Here's somebody, a young person who's gone through an initial training education process in a career and then finds his working environment is evolving around him in this case. In this case, apparently through the application of technologies. This is exactly the point I think I was trying to make at the beginning. The first thing is that person should not be left to struggle on by themselves unaccompanied and maybe just get displaced by somebody who does have the skills required. It's about that person having accessibility to the types of continuing training that will enable him or her to deal with those new and evolving environments. And it takes us back and I insist upon it on how much is that individual's responsibility? How much is the responsibility of the employer? And how much has to be provided in the public arena? And I think honestly, we're still at the beginning, I would say from an international perspective at least, of working out what effective delivery systems of lifelong learning really look like. I don't think we can say, well, there are some employers doing the right thing. We should just rely on good initiatives and hope the others will follow suit. Because there'll be competitive advantages derived from good process, it will generalize. I think that's a little bit too hopeful. And there are all different sizes of employers. And there are different sizes of employers. You have the opportunity to leverage scale. Middle-sized, smaller employers won't. So the question might become, are there consortia needed to help industries for foundational skills in addition to employers stepping up? But he also has a job, as Guy said, he shouldn't be left to struggle on alone. But I can imagine also that technology can also be a supplement to this person, not necessarily meaning that he will ultimately be displaced. But some of the less, some of the more onerous unsafe jobs can be, technology can be a benefit. And just even to use the example of the wearable technology for caregivers, where the image that I initially had was that it means robots are going in and handling older people in nursing homes. But in fact, it's a wearable technology for the person who works there that will be able to lift a patient without putting their own health at risk. So they embrace that technology. It's not really, it's not necessarily going to make them any less valuable as a worker, but in fact, it's a safer. So I don't know what kind of technology is used in a kitchen, but if I had somebody to chop onions or it could be like some of the less attractive parts of the job, and then the human is more engaged in the creative element of cooking, rather than doing some of the other stuff. So I think what we see in most of our industries and service industries, and I don't represent restaurant workers, but is that in fact, the technology is used to enhance the process and also the worker, if it's done in a way where they're not feeling threatened, where they have some say about it, where there's voice. And this is where, again, I come, you know, circle back always to the issue of unions, but where we have unions and big hotels, for example, in Las Vegas, they've negotiated language about new technology so that when they implement new technology, it should be negotiated. And in that scenario, workers are much more likely to feel, okay, I'm comfortable with this, and let's have a win-win outcome, and I can embrace it, and let's take away the work that we don't like in the first place, because it's monotonous or dangerous. But I think where you're on your own, it's very scary. What does this mean? Am I going to get laid off as someone else? So that's where I think that the voice part is very, very important. Great. Let's take some here, and yours was the first hand that I saw. Sorry. Shouldn't there be more accountability with schools and colleges for teaching obsolete knowledge and skills? I mean, we've been talking about employees and employers, but what about the institutions that are actually imparting obsolete knowledge and skills? Adam? I think we should be very careful about declaring particular knowledge and skills obsolete. I think a lot of people would have said art history is sort of an obsolete field, and yet art historians have done some of this most important work on creativity that we now use in Silicon Valley to teach people how to think differently about disruptive technologies. I think that when I think about obsolescence, the thing that I worry about is knowledge that's outdated. And I think that, yes, we should hold universities and colleges accountable for updating the facts, the data, the ideas that they're teaching. I think, though, that that's also part of the competitive advantage that an individual institution has. And so I would say it's partially up to the student or the applicant to vet the quality of information that's being conveyed by the school and choose not to go to a place that you feel is offering obsolete knowledge. Great. Sir? Thank you very much. I have a question about resource mobilization because everyone seems to agree that training, retraining, upskilling is very much needed, but where does the money come from? Big companies is resource for, therefore they can do that, but smaller companies, and in every country, smaller companies actually represent the largest business sectors and they employ most of the people. So how would we help them to really, to improve the situation in training? Thank you very much. Julie, I think you were talking to this. Yes. Look, I think there's a lot to be done with ed tech now in ensuring that we're finding the most efficient and effective way to deliver training. It doesn't all have to be inside bricks and mortar with face-to-face learning. I think there's a combination that's helpful and delivering training electronically is very cost effective. And so I think that's important. I also think I'm going to go back to this point about industries creating consortia to consider the common skills, foundational skills that are necessary in the industry and working together to find the best ways to ensure that those skills stay up to date for what's necessary given where technology is at a certain point in time. Great. Hi, thank you so much for the panel. So we've been talking a lot about acquiring skills and retraining, but there's a process in how to articulate that new identity that people may have, and that process is not always easy. People go through an emotional process when they have to say, I'm no longer a lawyer and now I have to be an entrepreneur. So do you have any comments on how both the private sector as well as the educational system can support the emotional journey that people go through in reinventing themselves? That's a really difficult question to answer, but I think it's a real question. I mean, if you go to, can I put it in hopefully not prejudicial terms, if you go to a displaced rust belt worker who's moving into a service job, there's a big emotional identity status thing involved. And I'm not sure how you really counsel someone through that. I think in the longer term, you got to just look at the quality and all of the issues and all of the aspects of a job that make it attractive, something which preserves the workers' dignity and sense of worthiness somehow, self-worth. They're really important things. I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. Can I just have a little go with the money, the financing bit, which Mr Halbin raised? Who pays, if we're going to talk about lifelong learning, no, who pays, where does money come from is an unavoidable question. It is unavoidable. See, this is an investment and there's a limited number of possibilities, aren't there? Either companies will be bearing the brunt of it voluntarily if they see an advantage in so doing, by being obliged to do so by an act of public policy, or it's going to come out of your taxes. It's going to be basically a tax-based system. Now, let's be clear. Some of the countries who do this stuff best are high-tax countries. The people who recycle, retrain, get people displaced from the labour market back into work are high-tax countries. Denmark, the arch example of the real practitioners of flexor security, but it comes at a price and that has to be accepted. There are also some very interesting examples out there. Some of the Scandinavian countries have payroll levies for vocational training. It's just paid in week by week, month by month, so that when the time comes, there's money for vocational retraining. Works very, very well, but it needs a collective commitment of that nature. Another approach, of course, is the idea of individual training accounts. Basically, the worker, as he or she moves through working life, accumulates a personal credit that that person can spend on reeducation retraining. But these are things which we have to, I think, wrestle with more and more in the future. I wouldn't there also be some responsibility for the individual who's being trained potentially? I don't think I heard that in your... Yeah, because I don't believe in it very much. It's why you didn't hear it. There is, I think, the obligation, and this is a tough one as well, isn't it? The receptiveness, the readiness to go for it, to do it. But if you're just putting a worker back to the wall, you've got to empty your pockets on this one. All of the risk returns on the worker. I don't agree with that approach. However, there is a reasonable, I suppose, sort of repetition of responsibilities. But it's a big social issue. I don't think there's a one side fits everybody answer. But some of the examples you used involve payroll deductions from the employee. Both. So employee and employer. So if that's your account over time, I mean, that's what I think the Swedish model is, that there's some contributions. Or the Singapore model is, you paid 10% of the cost. But I think, ultimately, it's a social responsibility, not the individual one, because these are not choices that that person brought on himself or herself. I just wanted to go back to the identity question for a minute, which I think is important and challenging for a lot of us. I think that professions and occupations do a disservice to people when they create narrow identities for them. So I worked on some research a couple of years ago where we went into a hospital and we actually asked people to redefine their own job titles by the contribution they make as opposed to the profession they belong to. And some people that had a lot of fun with this, there was a nurse who retitled herself nurse quick shot. Because she's a pediatric nurse and what she was trying to do was actually make the process of a kid getting a shot less painful. And all of a sudden, when she redefines herself that way, she realizes there's an emotional part of this role. It's not just about the medical care of being a nurse, it's also about helping a child feel safe. And I think when we look at the research on occupational identities, we know that it's extremely important to have multiple identities. So if we go back to the student who spoke who's a chef, I think chef is too narrow of an identity. I think if he sees himself as a culinary artist, technology becomes an asset. One simple way that could play out is we have major differences in palates. I would love for the restaurants I go to to have a little file on my palette and know that I eat like a five-year-old so that then I didn't have to look through the rest of the menu. And I think it's a small example, but I think we need broader occupational identities that don't just link us to one skill set, but allow us to say, look, here are all the different ways I can contribute. Great. We are almost out of time. So why don't we call it there, but just want to thank all of you on the panel and thank all of you here. It's been great and everybody watching. On to the future. Thanks, everybody.