 Thanks very much. Good morning, everyone. My name is Andy Surwer. I'm the editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance. And I want to welcome all of you to this panel on the nature and future of work. I think this is a really incredibly interesting topic. And I think it's at the very core of what the World Economic Forum has been discussing and working on, pun intended, for decades. And I think it will be the case for many years to come. This notion of what is work and the future of work is, of course, also at the very core of so many socioeconomic and political trends around the world. So it is highly, highly salient. And I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about that over the next couple of days with some of the political leaders who have decided to come to Davos this year. We have an awesome, awesome panel. And I will introduce you to them now. To my far right is CVK, who is the CEO of HCL. Got it. And that is an IT services firm, and we'll get into what he does. To my immediate right is Arlie Hochschild, who is a writer and a professor at Cal Berkeley and an expert in this field. To my left, my immediate left is Yuval Harari from the University of Jerusalem, a historian, and the author of an awesome book, Sapiens, The History of Humans, which is a book that I think many people have read here at Davos. And to my far left is Mary Flanagan, who is an interdisciplinary scientist, inventor, artist, humanist, and also a professor at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire and a traveler of the world. So let's get right into it. Yuval, I want to start with you because you're a historian and you've sort of studied mankind throughout the ages. The medievalists, you're a Middle Ages scholar in particular, but you understand what work was about going back into time and history. So can you give us some context? I mean, what is this notion of work and human beings? What does it mean for human beings to work? Oh, that's a tough question. It's a biggie. It changed throughout history many times. For much of history, people didn't work. They survived. I mean, the idea that I have a job, I mean, this is my job. I get up. I go at 8 o'clock to 5 o'clock. I do this. This is quite a modern notion. This is not how hunter-gatherers lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Now, of course, skepticism or anxiety about the loss of jobs is also not something new. Certainly throughout the Industrial Revolution, for the last two or three centuries, there is always this fear the machines are taking over. We will become irrelevant. But I think that this time it might be true. You know, like with the guy who cried wolf, eventually the wolf really came. Right. OK, that's a little scary. Wolves of technology, wolves. So, Arlie, let me ask you. I'm asking broad questions first, and we'll sort of drill down. Let me ask you, what is the state of things right now? Do you consider us to be in a crisis in terms of matching work with humanity? How would you assess the state of affairs? I think we are facing a crisis that we're not talking about. I don't feel that either in the United States, at least, left or right are really saying, hey, automation is here. We need to look at France, let's say. We need continuing education. So it is a crisis. And my fear is that some political leaders will use the anxiety that crisis creates to blame people who are not at fault, like blacks and immigrants. OK. CVK, I want to ask you a little bit about, maybe talk a little bit about what your company does, and then also give us a global perspective. How equal is this change around the world? Yeah. We at Headshill Technologies, we are one of the fastest growing IT services companies. About $8 billion, 120,000 people, primarily all technology services talent is what we have. And as we kind of look at this problem and then want to narrowly focus on technology industry, I think the wolf is not going to come. That's really the strong belief that I have. And it's really, if you look at every technology company, there is a huge shortfall of skills. We are not able to hire the right skills, whether it is data scientists or cybersecurity specialists, even to do change management, even to do program management in a modern context, it's so difficult to get the right talent. And every company, probably there are more than a million jobs in the technology sector, which is not getting fulfilled with the right level of talent. So I do believe in the technology industry, the narrative is very different. Instead of looking at job losses, it's really about how can you rescale and how can you get people much more capable to deliver to the new demands of the day. I would say that. Great. Mary, I think it's safe to say you're a creative person. And so I want to ask you the kind of big question for you is are we limiting ourselves in the way that we conceive of work and the way that human beings can think about work? What are the, what can we do differently in terms of how we think about behavior and work? Well, this is a really great question because it builds on history, right? I mean, if we didn't have this notion of nine to five work before and we have it now, we could see changes that are unfamiliar forms of work. So for example, thinking about new technological partnerships with groups of people working independently who might not be in a corporate structure, cooperative forms of new initiatives, like I think we're gonna be seeing a lot of different formats for corporations and companies that we don't actually have a good understanding for now. But I think we've seen this in also the push towards the handmade, with the automation and with advances, we also will have a return to the kind of boutique fetishization of the object as well. So let us not forget the kinds of new markets that will be emerging as we have more capacities, we'll also have more need for the human in some places. I want to continue with you a little bit, Mary. And I know you do a lot of work with AI. And can you talk a little bit about how AI impacts work? I mean, we all know, okay, technology is displacing jobs, right? Or changing them at least. But how can AI, how is AI affecting jobs and work? Well, I mean AI is one of the hot topics at the whole forum. So I'll only speak from my perspective on this, which is, I think we have this discourse about AI in terms of automation and kind of moving some simple tasks along. This is beyond kind of like big data and other forms of new knowledges that can emerge from AI. So we have lots of different levels at which AI is operating. For me, what's interesting is to figure out how the human matches into that equation. I don't think AI necessarily replaces, it's not like the job replaced with a job killer so much as this job, in some cases, automation. But in other cases, it'll act as a partner or improve jobs or improve work, what you can do. My worry, of course, as a humanist, is to go back to how are we preparing people to think about this? How can we take someone who's working at a grocery store and help them retool into another kind of work? And then what does society look like in that equation? And those are really tricky areas, I don't think we're prepared for, in terms of how we even conceive education and preparation to live in our society. Just two notes, by the way, in terms of audience. Number one, the audience here, we will be going to you all for questions at some point about 30 minutes in. So get ready with questions. Number one, and number two, I want to welcome everyone who's watching this panel on the live stream, which we are streaming all across the world on Yahoo. So Arlie, I wanna talk to you about your book, Strangers in Their Own Land, which is, it sounds like a really fascinating study and work that you did, where you went to Louisiana and talked to people who, I guess you could say, were feeling disenfranchised to a degree. What did you ask them and what did you find? Well, I spent five years first getting out of my bubble from Berkeley, California, and finding an equal and opposite bubble in southern Louisiana, among blue collar whites, many evangelicals, and really trying to take my own alarm system off and cross what I call an empathy wall. So I could really hang out with them and see what meanings, what feelings they had that underlaid their politics. At the time, I didn't know that they would become ardent Trump supporters, but it turned out that I was, that's who they were. So what I found, I'm just back up to say, I started with this red state paradox. How could it be that across the US, it's the poorest states, the states with the worst healthcare, the worst education, the most disrupted families who take more money from the federal government in aid than they give to it, and taxes, and yet they revile the federal government, big tea party, they wanna reduce the government. So I thought, well, don't get that, that's what I, the question I brought with me, but when I got there, they dropped that question. That wasn't their question, that was my question. I said, okay, we know, we're embarrassed to be so poor, but the real thing is something else, and that something else I came to feel was a deep story. What is a deep story? A deep story, you take facts out of it. You take moral precepts out of it. It's just what feels true about a salient situation, and you can tell it like a dream. By the way, left and right both have deep stories, but we have to, it's emotion-based, and in the right deep story, they're waiting in line, it's in a pilgrimage, trying and facing the American dream. They're feet are tired. They feel they don't begrudge anybody. They're just waiting for the American dream, and then, in a moment, they see line cutters. Well, these are federally mandated affirmative action blacks who finally have access to jobs that have been reserved for whites, even worse, women who finally have access to jobs that have been reserved for men, immigrants, refugees, even animals. They think that the environmentalists are putting animals above people. All they see is line cutters, so it feels unfair, and then they see Barack Obama, in this case, as waving to the line cutters, oh, he's their president. I'm left out, I'm pushed behind. So that's the deep story, and they felt that finally someone heard them. They didn't see anything else for them, the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, and someone swooped in, who is now our president, and said, I'm your guy, and they are that desperate. It's not that they love him, but nobody else seems to recognize the situation of decline, and they feel they're being bumped, from about to be bumped, from the good jobs they have or aspire to into the jobs that women and blacks do that are lower paid, and they think, in a way, what's happened to blacks ultimately is gonna happen to us. So there's a desperation and an anxiety that I think has to be front and central, this third of the country, it's really important we address it, and talk across this boundary, by the way, they want to talk. You mentioned a word I just picked up on, which is anxiety, and there is a lot of anxiety out there. Fear, some of it unfounded, but when you feel anxious, when you feel depressed, that's a reality, and you have some thoughts on that, that people are coping with these kinds of fears of not being able to get the right jobs and work and how it extends to their lives writ large. Can you talk a little bit about that? Yes, I think there are two issues regarding anxiety we should face. First of all is that, traditionally, people in that situation faced exploitation, and you had this big socialist call to arms that the exploited should revolt, and being exploited is very bad, but at least you have power. Now people fear something far, far worse than exploitation. They fear irrelevance. Yes, that's right. When you're exploited, you're at least important, they can't shoot me, I mean, who would work? When I'm irrelevant, that's far more scary. So this is one anxiety that is rising, and the other issue with anxiety is that I think that there will be new jobs. The big question is whether people will be able to reinvent themselves to fill these jobs. And if you have to reinvent yourself every 10 years, because the automation revolution will not be a one-time affair. We have a big revolution, everything is in chaos, and then it slows down to a new equilibrium end of story. No, it will be a cascade of ever bigger revolutions and disruption, and then people have to reinvent themselves again and again, and that's extremely difficult. To reinvent yourself when you're 20, it's difficult, but you do it. To do it again at 30, at 40, at 50, that's very high levels of anxiety. All right, so you've got wolves and constant revolutions over here, Yuval, and this is tricky stuff. But I think you're very much on to something. And I wanna ask you, CBK, a little bit about this, and you know, but the job elimination and losses are real, I mean, McKinsey has a study that says that one-third of all workers in the US and Germany will have to find new types of jobs over, you know, say a 10-year period. And so, CBK, you've talked about new formats for jobs, and I'm curious as to what that means exactly. I think the formats of jobs are changing in several dimensions. I mean, first, somebody alluded that it's not an eight to five kind of jobs. It's very flexible hours. That's one fundamental change. Second is, as a society, we've been used to 15 or 20 years of education followed by several decades of professional career and work. I think that's going to change. We're in a world where it's a state of continuous learning. You learn, you acquire new skills. Just taking on the point that he said, you have to reinvent yourself. You need to be continuously learning. I think that's a very, very important dimension of keeping yourself relevant in the new paradigm. And it's again, you tend to work with more humans as colleagues. We need to get used to working with humanoids as colleagues, because it's really artificial intelligence, robotics, all of them. It's very important to recognize that they enable humans to do something better and faster. I think as long as that thought is clearly embedded in the minds, and that's the narrative, then you are a lot more working constructively to find solutions. Even if you look at any study, you mentioned about McKinsey, there's a Gartner study which says, in the next three years, 1.8 million jobs will be lost. But there's a 2.3 million new jobs which are getting created. So I think any study talks about changing profile of the work, the repetitive monotonous work. Obviously, throughout the history, they've got automated. They've got eliminated. But more creative, more unique, more thinking-oriented jobs continue to evolve. I think it's just recognition of this. And then we really focus on doing something about changing or re-skilling the broader workforce. That's where the solution lies. I want to talk, get drill down into some of those numbers, because there's all kinds of data out there. And you can find the data that matches your viewpoint to an extent. It's always the case, but here in particular. Let me ask you just point blank about outsourcing, because this is what you do. And is outsourcing bad for developed countries and good for developing countries? Net, net, pure and simple. Absolutely not. I think if you need to look at outsourcing in different colors. If you look at the technology industry, today every business is getting reinvented with technology at the core. The technology intensity in the industry is growing tremendously and even exponentially. So I think outsourcing is truly creating jobs, because your ability to address or serve the needs of the technology intensity that's really on in the plane in every enterprise is the core of creating more white-collar jobs. And I think we are a big enabler. We are probably the only industry which is bringing in a lot of young talent and really making them better equipped to deal with the technology requirements that the future is looking at. OK. Mary, I want to ask you about gender and jobs in the future of work. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's a question. Will women be hurt more or less with the changes coming to employment, do you think? Well, I mean, that's the big fear for most people engaged in any kind of looking at the biases in our systems. If we're getting rid of some of the low-paying jobs, they tend to be people of color and women, at least in the United States. They might be immigrants, migrants, or those less educated. So we have to really understand the class implications of technological development and the infrastructural racism that could result in sexism and gender that could result as a form of this kind of thing. Now, how we get over this is a really interesting question. And I want to go back to this notion of education. If we really think, I mean, what if we throw out the idea of, I'm at a university, so apologies to Dartmouth, but if we throw out the idea of university as a one-time thing and we think about lifelong learning and we think about the kind of experiential learning that has to be happening the rest of our lives in order to keep up with ourselves and our own work environment. It changes how universities might become partners with institutions and businesses. We might have a kind of spiral. And I think this would also work and help shifting some of these class issues, because right now we don't have a huge section of the population even attending college. It's not relevant. How do you make it relevant? It's necessary to work in the backbone of the infrastructure of society, right? So I think shifting the role of education may be a dire need really quickly, actually. And I don't think institutions are thinking this way at all. We're thinking about online learning and expanding skills, but it's really these mindset. How are you gonna create a creative class? That's something that doesn't happen in an online class of clicking your buttons. This is something experiential. It's lived. We really need to retool and reinvest in our learning situations, whether they be universities or some other model. You mentioned lower skilled jobs being displaced and maybe women being disproportionately represented in those jobs. And one job that comes to mind that I think is front and center this week is cashiers at stores. And I'm saying that because I don't know if you guys saw this, but Amazon opened up its first cashierless store. And at first, when I saw that, I said, oh, I'm familiar with that. I've seen that in the airports. You just check out yourself. But it's not like that. It's a lot easier because, I don't know, again, if you saw this, but it's with the app and you have Amazon's app and you scan the app when you walk into the Amazon store and then you go into the store and you just pick things off the shelf and walk out. Yep. And it scans the things that you are walking with. So it's much easier because I always found those self-checkout things to be very clunky and slow. And that's the first gen thing. I always go to the cashier because the cashier is faster. Yeah. And you are. Which is job security. But this Amazon thing is not job security. And let me see here. I've got, there's 3.5 million cashiers in the United States alone. Think about that. And then another one, which is at risk, we'll talk about jobs at risk are truck drivers. The truck drivers, again, in the United States, the biggest job category, the number one job in the United States is truck drivers. And we've all heard about driverless trucks coming. So Arleigh, I just want to ask you if you've given any thought to what kind of work will we be doing and what kind of work do the subjects of your book aspire to maybe as a question I could ask you then. Yeah. The first thing I'd say is that work, the fact of work is hugely moral for the people I came to know in Louisiana. In other words, I talked with one woman who said, I'm a worker, you know. She didn't tell me how good she was at the work. She didn't tell me how important, you know, consequential, did it make a better world? It wasn't that, it was just I work. And she attached pride to that. And so desperate was that she said, actually I think we ought to go to Europe and France and take all the graveyards of fallen American soldiers from World War I and II, bring those graveyards back to Louisiana or somewhere else where American workers can tend the graves and with American lawn mowers can mow the lawn. This was her feeling. And it wasn't. So, okay, so, and she looked down on people. This is the other side that's really important on people who did not work. It was, people would say to me things like, oh, you know, it's Seventh and Broad Street, giving out Obama phones to the people that don't work. These are phones. Go look, as if this was a shame spot. This is the people that don't work, they go there. Or another grocery store, when they get their welfare checks, they buy chickens over there. You should go over there and look. What was I being told to do? But to experience the shame that they attach to non-work. So, where you're talking about a change of mental set and you too, that we have to re-school ourselves, but the people I'm talking to, the Trump supporters, are, they're not ready at all. And I would add a gender point that I think part of what I saw being tapped is a crisis in manhood. I think that Donald Trump has tapped into some, anxiety again, that men are feeling even more than women. And that, I know there's some research down at Berkeley that indicates that first generation college students, should I go to college or not, women are more likely to say, okay, do I dare accumulate the debt? Yes, I do. And it's the guys who say, no, I don't dare go to college because it would cost too much. And they're staying in the blue collar avenue. Well, that's the most vulnerable avenue. So I think we have to look at men as in crisis and anxious and find a solution. I think you're spot on. I mean, especially younger women are particularly achieving more that generation and Gen X and Gen Z. And by the way, I also want to make a point that, you know, I'm sorry if we're talking a little bit about the United States too much, but I think that all of these trends that we're talking about apply to Europe and other parts of the world as well, particularly Europe. It's developed countries. I mean, you've seen the same political reactions and traits and trends in Europe, in many countries in Europe, that you are seeing in the United States. So it's sort of metaphorical and emblematic that way. Yuval, I want to ask you about humans and work again. What work are humans best suited to do? And what work makes the most sense for humans to do now and in the future? Oh, I'll give you the hard one. You keep coming back with the wolves and the revolutions, so I'm giving you the hard ones. Well, you know, a lot of what people do is just not recognized as work. Like raising kids, it's not recognized as work. You can just, you know, change the label and say, oh, there is plenty of work for everybody. It's just whether you recognize it as such or not. And certainly much of the work that people do today or in the last century or two, it's definitely not in their nature to just stand like Charlie Chaplin in a big factory and just screw something all day. We are, as we evolved as hunter-gatherers, we are much more adapted to go to the forest, look for mushrooms, climb trees and things like that. But who does that today? So there is, I mean, we are beyond the point where you can say there is a natural human work or there is a natural human job. The lines keep shifting, especially, not just as AI is developing. I think there is far too much focus on AI and robotics when we talk about the future of the job market. And we should pay equal attention to what is happening on the biotechnological front and especially to our ability to decipher human beings, decipher the human brain. A lot of jobs depend on the ability to understand human emotions. I mean, even to just, you know, driverless car, you need to understand these pedestrians, how they're behaving. Certainly, if you want to replace, I don't know, bankers or social workers, you need understanding of human emotions. And the big revolution, which is happening in parallel with AI machine learning, is deciphering the human brain. And we could reach a point in the not-too-distant future that AI could have better emotional intelligence than human beings. They won't have consciousness. They won't have feelings of their own. But if you accept what the life sciences are telling us, that emotions are just biochemical algorithms, they are not some metaphysical spirit, then we are very close to the point when an AI will have better emotional intelligence than human beings. So what are we left to do then? That's the big question. This is the question of our panel. Exactly. Well, so I'm asking, you have to answer. I mean, so we talked about this, we talked about these jobs and we talked about this back in our prep session. You know, what jobs is kind of a parlor game, okay? What jobs are vulnerable, what jobs are not? Go ahead, I'm sorry. One, again, just thinking in a slightly different way is we don't have to protect jobs, we have to protect people. I mean, you could have scenarios in which you ditch jobs. I mean, most jobs are not worth keeping. I mean, who wants to be cashier in all his life? I mean, this is the meaning of my life. I'm a cashier and I don't want this. I mean, sometimes I have to do it, but it's not like something, oh, we have to save the cashiers. So we really need to protect the humans, not the jobs. And the crisis here is a crisis of meaning, not of employment. If you can solve the crisis of meaning, then you can forget about jobs. But there's also, did you want to say something? I'm sorry. No, okay. Okay, there's also a political question though and that maybe this is linked to, which is universal income. Right, right. And how many, let me ask the audience, how many people believe in universal income? Some people, we can. Five, six. Yeah, a lot of people do, but a lot more people don't. So is there anyone who wants to talk about universal income and why it's a good idea? We'll get to that, maybe we'll get back to that. I just think, yeah, I think that's a really interesting point. CBK, I want to go over to you and ask you then though, what jobs do you think are the most easy to replace and what are the most difficult to replace with technology? I think at the very basic level, all the jobs that the left brain does is something which can be automated. And the right brain is where you will find it very, very difficult. It's emotions while you can describe it as chemical reactions to understand and decipher and for the technology to evolve. It's really a long way off. So it's the creative, unique jobs which need a lot of thinking. I think pretty much the right brain is what is not replaceable, I would say. Mary, do you have examples of people who are using creativity to sort of redefine their work? I mean, you meet with all different types of people who are doing really cool things. Well, since 1973, an artist, Harold Cohen, actually developed an AI to paint paintings. So he wanted to paint, but he thought he was a bad painter, so he just made an AI to paint. And then the AI was called Aaron, and Aaron started painting and selling his paintings. And Aaron's paintings sell for quite a, they're doing all right. So this partnership with using AI or kind of this partnership and using a tool as a creative process is a long time coming, actually. Artists have been thinking about this the whole time. So as soon as there's a technology artist are doing, I would encourage everybody to look at what artists are doing today about social media and about issues of privacy because that's where the critique and the new tools actually come out in the dialogue. It will surface in culture 20 years later. So it's interesting, but that's one example I can give you where we have this kind of fusing. Right, people talk about that partnership of human and machine as the sort of ultimate paradigm going forward. I mean, there are also things we were talking about this as well, that jobs that are not repetitive and deal with unexpected events. What was that one? Oh. The plumber? Oh yeah, no, definitely yes. I have forgotten about my plumber now. Yes, the plumber is a very safe job, I think. Finding a frozen pipe and trying to figure this out, plumbing is not standardized. Anything that's not standardized and very difficult to kind of parse, I think is on the way to humans being able to be a little bit more apt at that particular position than a computer. Although never say never, you know? I mean, the technology will always surprise us as where it comes in and is very useful and where it isn't. And that's, again, great. But I don't think that there's a burning desire to make AI for replacing artists. It's not like that's the forefront of the jobs today. I'd be more interested in thinking about how could you automate project management? Multitasking and seeing if you're behind and motivating your team members, what does that look like? That's an interesting question. Now everyone would think that's a safe job because it requires so many human skills. Huh, what would that look like? So these thought experiments, I think, help us try to see where humans are strong at particular positions and also the ethical questions. Any time there's an ethical question, humans need to be there to be deciding those ethical questions. I've seen algorithms with ethical questions in Silicon Valley and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't, which is maybe not a good success rate when it comes to ethical questions. That's true of humans also. Yeah, I suppose so. Yes. We're not infallible when it comes to ethical questions, are we? No. Not infallible, period. Right, yes. In fact, we're quite fallible. Yes, but are machines fallible? Yes. Right. But maybe at a, depends on the rate of fallibility. Who's programming them? Well, you also talked about people gardening is a job that may be safe and lawn care, things like that are being a dentist. But all those things could be, in fact I was looking at something and one study showed that a very safe job from technology and I mentioned this to you guys was clergy, a minister. That is until I found there was an app called Confession with a drop-down menu for sins. So to your- Is there another? Is there another? Yeah, yeah. So to your point, Mary, I mean just you think you're safe and then maybe three years later you're not so safe. I think we should watch the safe word though because it's not about whether we're safe or not. It's how we can use this technology. I mean, I do wanna be an optimist and say, okay, well, you know, we have to design for the human and we have to have certain ethical standards for that, but it's always going to be a dance, I think between the technology and the people. And where I was hanging out in Louisiana, religion is hugely important. There's a church at every block and big megachurches and I don't think they would use this app and the more anxious they become about the loss of a moral self and meaning, the more they would turn to church, I think, yeah. Or the other thing they turn to is opioids and drugs, sadly. And then that becomes a whole another place, sadly, of job creation, which is people who work in addiction and first responders in your state of New Hampshire are very, very busy because they have a huge heroin, fentanyl and opioid problem in that state. And maybe it's a growth category, but it's kind of a sad one. I want to ask you early a little bit about the government because that was sort of a key issue for the people in your book. And is government, can government be a source of help for people as they transition to other jobs? There was a program in West Virginia where they were trying to help coal miners become coders. And it sounds a little silly maybe, but a lot of people signed up. There were 50 openings and 700 people signed up. That's my next project, actually. I got a call from a Democratic congressman, 17th district in California, Bo, his name is, and he made a Ocon an agreement. His constituency is Silicon Valley. And he said, half of my constituency are Asian, I'm Asian myself. And he made a deal with a Republican congressman from Paintsville, Kentucky, whose constituency are unemployed coal miners. And what they have done is set up coding program, takes 30 weeks, you get $400 a week and are promised a $40,000 a year job. If you succeed, the first 30 students have graduated and they call themselves now Silicon Hollow. So they're staying right there in Kentucky. They don't wanna move, but they're doing coding for apps for cell phones. So will their jobs be automated out? Well, maybe eventually, but and our older people graduating from these courses, I'm gonna find out. But it's a start and I liked it that it seemed bipartisan and forward looking. And incidentally, in Paintsville, Kentucky, there's an opiate addiction, huge problem. And presumably this could help with that. You mentioned Asia and I wanna talk to you, CBK about that and government policies in the two most populous countries in the world, India and China. And I would maintain that jobs and having a robust job economy is a policy slash obsession of the Chinese government. And I'm wondering what your take on that is and in India as well, is that an obsession for Prime Minister Modi? Absolutely. I think if you just try and differentiate how this problem manifests in Asia versus the rest of the world, I think the fundamental difference is in the demographics. The number of young graduates or people, millennials, who are getting into the workforce every year is more than the population of a few countries, right? So I think the challenges of a very different dimension which is posed by the demographics. So I think job creation, trying to kind of train them and make them equipped for the entry-level jobs is the big agenda. I'm sure it's a big agenda in India and so is the case with China as well. Yeah, in China. And I think all of them have a role to play. The academia has a big role to play because the nature of education is quite not aligned to what the job requirements are. There is a huge gap between them. So there is a lot of effort going into training them to make them eligible for the jobs. And government also has a big role to play because the availability of access to training, awareness of what are the right skills to really build capabilities on. And industry as well. I mean, industry needs to bridge the gap between the education and employability. I think that's a big gap, especially on the technology industries are very big thing. Someone made the point, I don't know if this is urban myth or not, but then in China, for instance, a lot, there are so many technology graduates that the government uses those graduates as part of the security apparatus, that the filling all those jobs of people surveilling the population of China and the populations of other parts of the world is actually, sure, it's security, but it's also, we need to get jobs for these people. So the implications there are sort of interesting as well. Again, you hear things in the United States about China that are not necessarily the case. So we have to be careful about that. I wanna see if we can go to the audience and get some questions from you guys. Oh, we got some people right away, right away. Do we have microphone, we do. There's two people, you have to choose between those two. It's your, okay, he did it. Please. Good afternoon. I'm a global shaper from Kazan. My name is Lesan. I'm also from educational system and I'm an associate professor in university and I have a question. How and who should change our traditional educational system and could you please describe ideal future educational system and how it will look looks like in your opinion, maybe. Very, I wanna say very big thank you to you for incredible discussion. Thank you. We have two academics here. You guys both wanna answer it one at a time. Go ahead. Sing. Or anyone else, three academics. Yeah, we have three academics. You too. So many academics. I'll start because I'm verbose and I have really clear things, hopefully clear things. So I've been advocating since I came to, I've been at Dartmouth nine years and I've been advocating that we throw out classrooms and just throw out the whole notion of the way we learn and we teach in project teams and tackle real world problems that also include philosophers, social scientists, hard scientists, technologists and we just go around and artists and work as project teams doing a whole curriculum in this kind of way. So that's been my, no one's listening to me but it's great as I propose these things. And I really do believe that there's a, we need to reshape even not only the way the disciplines work together and specialties and generalizations for 21st century skills. We call these, you know, things like creative problem solving, things like even the wow factor being excited about things is like a kind of skill. We don't need information. We need information retention. We need cross disciplinary thinkers who can grab onto solutions. But I also, there's that sense but it's also about teamwork and I wanted to get back to this whole, we haven't traditionally at least in formal United States learning structures emphasize teamwork and I know that that's different around the world but teamwork is really still very uncomfortable for students and very untrusted and difficult to assess and obviously I also do game design and those are very team-based kinds of things to do. So teamwork is still something, this should be a natural thing that is a part, humans are social creatures, whether we like to think about it or not. So that was a cell phone, I don't know. Good, all right. It's just not hiding, you know. I could do that too as a social creature. But like, so that's one proposal for you. You Val, you have anything to add from the University of Jerusalem? Go ahead, Arlie. I love what you just said, Mary. That really sounds very exciting but what I would add to it, I think, is the idea of universities getting out of their moral bubbles. There is a big split between people who live in rural areas, who resent the elite class and then there are universities who produce the elite class and a sense of, wow, you're so special. You were chosen to study at Oxford or Harvard or Berkeley. And we've got to get rid of that. We need exchange programs between rural and urban universities. Berkeley is now trying to get an exchange program with the University of Mississippi, for example. I think more of that, to break down the sense of isolation and othering. So I would add that and the idea of continuing education. Anything you wanna add? Yeah, just that any solution will have to be lifelong education which breaks the sharp divide between the school and real life. And also the really big problem is scalability. We can think all kinds of very creative solutions which can be applied in Silicon Valley. But what do you do about the millions of people who lose their jobs in Bangladesh producing shirts? I mean, what kind of education will they get or do they get today that will enable them to cope with the immense challenges ahead? So I mean, the big thing working for the old fashioned industrial era education is that it's scalable. And we need to compete with the scalability, not just with coming up with some bright idea. Very good, very good. The question, oh here, got a microphone, sorry. Fantastic panel. I'm coming from the School of Economics, in fact. And my question is to Professor Harari, who is my intellectual hero. Where is leisure? Where is leisure in all this discussion? We have been talking about jobs and and and but the counterparty to this is that leisure has increased over time and it's qualitatively has been revolutionized. The way I spend my leisure is very different, very sort of intellectually much more enriching and humanly much more enriching than ever before thanks to technology and all the excess, sort of very cost-effective access. So where is leisure in all this? Well, it's the other side of the coin. If you solve the problem of meaning especially, then that's really the problem of leisure. And I don't think we've been doing very well with leisure despite all the advances. People today, I mean, I'm living at least in many parts of the world compared to both their ancestors in the Middle Ages dreamt about people today in many parts of the world are living in paradise. But it doesn't feel like that. Why? Because we don't know, I mean, we are good when it comes to being efficient and working hard and all that. But when, okay, you've done it, now just take it easy and we can't do it. It's because these are always, one of the reasons we always have these, right? And that also is a form of work, by the way. Let's just talk about our data. Very much so, right? I mean, there was this line that Cain said, we would only be working 15 hour weeks, but we're actually now working 15 hour days. It's kind of a familiar trope, but anyway, that's a very interesting point. Question over here, these people, this person. Hi, fantastic discussion. I'm Risala, I'm a global shaper from the Dhaka Hub in Bangladesh. So all of you have alluded to the pace of change and how fast it is changing. But I think one of the things that doesn't feature in the discussion as much is why. I think there are forces that are hidden in plain view that are driving many of these changes. Like for a company, for example, you have clear incentives to replace labor with capital. So these conversations, like those hidden forces, can we bring them into the discussion and think about how we can change the incentives to prioritize people and not just the drive for efficiency at the expense of people? Thanks. So your thoughts on that, please. A business question. Yeah, I mean, businesses and corporations are always going to push the envelope of efficiency. And I think every time when they've done that, the outcomes have been better. One is you may have eliminated some jobs, but the quality of what is being done, the speed at which things are being done, that only benefits the larger good. Now, at the same time, the businesses will also have to take responsibility of how are they trying to deal with the job losses, right? I mean, to some extent, you're working on an outcome which is driven by your shareholders and what the capitalistic economy is looking at. But if you just step back a little bit, a lot of companies are investing in training. I think the training budgets across the world, most enterprises are continuing to enhance the training budgets. So I think you need to do it in a very responsible manner. I think we should just try and push the envelope on that as well. You focus on efficiency, push the envelope to the maximum, but also look at what is the path for innovation, how can you enable that by better investments in learning and development, I would say. Arli, you had a comment. I like this question very much and I think it's very important. I think it's connected to the question of the distribution of wealth in the world and the country, speaking of the United States. Does automation mean that capital is getting concentrated or the people who are in the companies that produce automation and being taken from people that don't do that? This question really is central. That's why I like your question. And I would add the political consequences of this. If the people that I studied, you know, third of the US who really feel that Trump is their savior and they increasingly lose money in this redistribution, they and Trump is offering them symbolically a few new jobs, we'll bring a carrier jobs, for example, back to the US, but he really doesn't do anything and he doesn't do anything about reskilling or then people are gonna be really fearful, anxious and he's going to redirect blame for their unhappiness toward immigrants, toward blacks, toward women. I think we need to think about redistribution and the political manipulation of the anxiety that produces. And maybe really underlying it, you know, of course is the digital revolution, right? I mean, it's sort of, I guess a given, we haven't even said that, that's what's really the cause, the proximate cause, the accelerant and maybe why Yuval's wolf is real this time because we've never seen anything like this in the history of mankind, right? Andy, I think to build on this conversation and to really be inspired by your question, we do have to as societies think about what's enough. Like what is enough and can we reach that? I mean, and this goes back to the meaning, right? What is a meaningful life, what is enough? And we don't ask that enough. That is not enough, I will say that. And instead, this idea of progress really might need to be questioned, why have all the speed and efficiency when I don't meet a human face during my day? We have grocery stores and we get rid of all of the human employees because it's very efficient. What is my life like as a person walking down the street, not seeing people? We're not built for that. We can try to adapt to that, but why would we build a world in which we don't want to live in? We keep doing that. So I think we might want to take a step back and say, okay, well, how do we manage this obsession with progress and growth? What is that? Why are we so obsessed with that? And could we say maybe we have enough and we need to share? Question over here. Hi, my name is Inab, I'm a global shaper as well from Geneva, Switzerland. And my question is, I mean, you've all mentioned, you've talked about the responsibility of both the companies and the educational system and how all these need to work together to shift the mindset of people as well from going from the traditional mindset of waiting for the education or the university to teach you or the companies to train you and move towards reinventing yourself and continuous learning. So my question here is, what can we do as individuals while we wait for all these changes to come together? What can we do right now as we're trying to move towards personal development and own in our own careers, but concretely, like what can we do? Push for continuing education. I wouldn't wait, I would get into an activist mode. And push for precisely the kind of innovation I think Mary's talking about. I think Macron is talking about giving funds to citizens that can be used for lifelong learning. We could take that as a model, I think to other less advanced countries like my own. And go ahead. I think it's really a question of who you are. I mean, people are in extremely different situations and this means they have different opportunities. There is no universal individual that you can give an advice to. I mean, the best advice I could give is to invest above all in your own mental resilience because in times of chaos, in times of, the only certainty is that there's going to be change, lots of change. So anything particular you're investing, like learning how to code or do this or this particular skill, it's a bet. And you don't really know whether this skill will actually be necessary. The one thing that you will need, certainly, is emotional resilience and mental resilience to just survive with all this change, all this stress. But this is very, very difficult. There is no, I don't know of any course in university which teaches you how to be emotional resilient. There should be. There should be. Some pedagogies do focus on growth mindset, however. There are actually companies, there's a company, for instance, called General Assembly which maybe solves two problems at the same time where you can go and it's in cities around the world, for instance, and you can go there and learn, yes, you can learn to code, but other business skills. But beyond that, you're with other people, right, to your point. So you're communally learning and growing and challenging and adapting to the new economy and socializing at the same time. Whoa. Which seems pretty cool. Keep good friends. Right? So we're getting close to the end of the session and just to, one more quick one? Is it a quick one? Good. Okay. Let's just do that. Always want to make sure people are. What we're talking actually about are two different things. Once putting jobs out of work, if you look at the caring economy which is unpaid, we can call it jobs and that was discussed. What actually we are talking about is that if the wolf is really real this time, what's the insurance policy we have? So we probably have to look at basic income. And if basic income has two different concerns, one is affordable and there are studies going on and it'll be cleared. Sometimes the studies say it'll be more expensive, but it doesn't take into account that if you have basic income and healthcare, the preventative aspect of healthcare will have far reaching consequences in the budgetary affordability. But the other thing is, and that's very important, is job is not just about income, it actually is about social worth, which probably is a more pragmatic and practical illustration of meaning. So what we need to do is start looking at what are different ways in which people derive social worth. Creative economy is one, but not everyone is creative. We need to look at what prosaic ways people in online communities, they have shared something, they become popular. That's what sort of drives them and they have a basic income and they're perfectly happy to become popular. So as academia and as civil society, we need to understand where do people derive social worth, just as an insurance policy if the wolf is real this time. And we're gonna take that as a comment rather than a question. Not because it wasn't because it could be, but also mostly because we're out of time. It's a very good comment. So I really enjoyed this conversation. I learned a lot and I hope you guys did too and it's obviously just the beginning. I mean, this is an unprecedented time in which we're living, the solutions are murky, the change and the wolf are here and we're all going to be living it and experiencing it and I hope thriving in it as well. So please join me in thanking this great panel, CBK Arley, Neval and Murray.