 Hello, welcome. Thank you so much for joining us today for a discussion on two very important topics that are actually very closely linked, wages and inequality. Now, these are issues that affect the global economy, but they also hit very close to home. They have an immediate impact on businesses and families, and we are here to discuss fair wages and how we can better close the gap, wage gap. I'm Abba Patrai. I'm the economics correspondent at The Washington Post. And before I move on to our panelists, I'd like to just note that ensuring fair wages is a priority for the World Economic Forum and is part of its good work framework. If you are on social media and are tweeting about this or Instagramming, Snapchatting, what have you, please use the hashtag WEF22. All right. I would like to introduce our distinguished panel, starting with Neela Richardson, who's the chief economist at ADP, which is a payroll company in the United States. Next to her is Jean Pascal DuVersor, who goes by JP. He is from the Czech Republic and is the CEO of Homecredit, which is a consumer lender throughout the world. And all the way at the far corner there is Mauricio Cardenas, who's a former finance minister of Columbia, who is now at Columbia University. All right, so I would like to start with you, Neela. I would like to rewind to just the beginning of the pandemic. What were wages doing before COVID hit? What were we seeing in the United States in terms of wage growth, in terms of inequality, and what impact has the pandemic had? It's great to remember, right? So before the pandemic, I'll bring you back to that lovely time period. The US was enjoying 10 years of economic expansion. And there was a lot of good things about that expansion, but the secret of it was its tortoise-like pace. It was really, really slow. And inflation was really, really low. And so it was able to jump over business cycles for a decade-long expansion. What's also notable about that expansion is it took a really long time for wages in the United States to actually see growth. In fact, they stagnated. And the perplexing issue was, why weren't wages taken off despite this long expansion? The Federal Reserve, for all of its power in reducing interest rates, still was trying to generate some kind of wage growth, particularly at the lower end of the wage scale. And they largely succeeded. As the economy was entering into this period, right before the onslaught of the pandemic, that's when we were starting to see gains at the low end of the pay scale. But if I could just go back even prior, more theoretical, to the pandemic, wages really grow for three main reasons. And you saw them all play out in this three-year, two-year period before, during, and hopefully at the tail end, most places, and eventually all of the pandemic. One, they grow because of productivity enhancement. That's grade A growth. That just raises the standard of living for everybody. It's the kind of wage growth that even companies cheer because it raises profits. It raises household lives and children's lives all over the world. And so that's the kind of growth we want to see. The second reason, wages grows because of composition. And that points to how uneven the pandemic was during the onslaught. It really hit low-income jobs and consumer-facing services the hardest. And so the net effect was wages looked like they were growing really fast, particularly for women who were hit very hard by this pandemic when, actually, we just lost a lot of low-paying jobs. And then the final reason wages can grow, and this is something that is particularly acute in the United States, where we have what's been coined the Great Resignation, 11 and 1 1⁄2 million job postings, over 4 million quits, and pronounced labor shortages. They grow because of competition. Companies are competing for talent. Both of those latter two are not good sources of growth, and they actually lead to inflation. So as I hope we talk about wages on this panel that we're particularly cognizant of why they grow, we see at ADP, I'm their chief economist, about 20 million wage records a week, and we pay about 38 million workers around the world. And so when it comes to wages, we have this unique perspective about how this unevenness played out, and particularly who was hardest hit. And as we'll hopefully talk about, it's those low-scale professions pointing back to productivity enhancements. That's the challenge when it comes to inequality. Perfect. J.P., you specialize in loans for people who have no credit history or perhaps little credit history. Can you tell me about what you're hearing from them, what are you hearing from their clients, and how do fair wages play into that? So it's complicated to sit on an economical discussion between two economists, not being an economist by background. So what do we see? So home credit is active in central Europe, in CIS, which right now is not a very popular place to be investing in. And in Southeast Asia, if you look at central Europe, for example, over the last 20 years, the wage growth you've seen is tremendous, is absolutely tremendous. And as Neda was saying, it's on the back of a fantastic economic transformation, leveraging qualified labor force and driving economic growth, all of that in the framework of a very strong legal and social framework, which was given to that region by the EU, unnoticed achievement, but a very strong point. So going back to the point, we see there, and we see also in the risk cost on the consumer lending, extremely low risk cost and very strong demand for lending, because that's what people do. They get good income, then they see they get borrow, and basically make today their life better based on tomorrow's income. Southeast Asia has suffered massively during the COVID, but is rebounding extremely quickly, I have to say, extremely quickly. One of the reasons I think is that people they are earning and spending directly, so as soon as the economy has restarted, they had to restart. You have no massive resignation in Southeast Asia. People are back to work because they need to feed themselves, go to school, and there is no massive resignation effort. And there you see right now a very strong increase in demand for lending. As an employer, I also have to tell you, you see massive battle for talent. And I'm going back to one of the point, which is wage inequality, the best way to solve it from my experience as an employer is to have good productivity, to have labor laws that are ensuring that you have no social dumping, and strong economy, and then basically wages go up very quickly. Perfect. Mauricio, we've heard a lot about the growing wage gap. How do we fix it? Well, that's a big question. Let me start by saying that this idea of a very tight labor market, that salaries are going up, there are not enough jobs. People get extra benefits like a college education to get a basic, just basically by signing for a basic job. It's not a global issue. I come from a region of the world, Latin America, where we have unemployment rates in the double digits, and where the pandemic was devastating for the labor market. And the problems that we're dealing with today is essentially low wages, high unemployment, and not to that today, the food crisis, because food prices are going up as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. So all this makes this a really important topic. When things grow, when problems grow so much, it's also the opportunity to fix them. They become more visible, they are more apparent, and we understand them better. So underlying this situation, and if we rewind prior to the pandemic, what we had in many parts of the world, including Latin America, was very high levels of informality. And the main difference in a job that is in the formal sector versus one in the informal sector, everything else equal. Same person, same gender, same job is that the informal job is paid much less well. And what happened with the pandemic? It amplified that. It exacerbated that problem, because the informal jobs are the jobs where more personal contact exists, people that work directly in contact with others. And those jobs cannot really be digitalized, or you cannot do that through Zoom. So the wage gap increased. The informal jobs were lost, salaries in the informal sector were compressed, and therefore we have a situation where we really need to make sure that we push employment and salaries up. One, you ask how? How are we going to do this? Well, it's really about allowing businesses to generate more jobs, to generate employment. So rather than taxing the payroll, which is something that many countries do, especially not in America, we need to tax other sources of income. We need to tax capital. We need to tax not the activity of generating jobs. That's one element. That's something we need to stop doing. And the other aspect that I think is fundamental in this equation is have gender-based policies, because it was women that were most impacted by this. So we should not be afraid, and I say this as a former finance minister, of creating stronger incentives, more benefits for the generation of formal jobs for women. This has to do with tax issues. This has to do with stimulus packages. This has to do also with scaling. We need to provide more scales. And we should always emphasize the gender dimension, because there is a double wage gap. The formal versus informal, men versus women. And if you're a woman, and you work in the informal sector, that's the worst condition, and we need to fix that. Perfect. Along those lines, Nila, you talked a bit about the uneven hit at the beginning of the pandemic. Can you break that down a little bit for us? Who was most affected in terms of lost wages by income, by gender, by race? And what has the recovery been like since then for those groups? A lot of my remarks on that will overlap nicely. We're both economists, so that's not a big surprise, different lenses, though. Just to pick up on that male-female wage gap, for example, we found that in our data, women were 46% of the US workforce, but took 53% of the losses. And those losses were really acute at times when the pandemic waves were shutting down social infrastructure like schools. So we saw that in September of 2020, women left the labor market at four times the rate of men. What that meant for wages is the gap actually narrowed. It went from 80% gap, women making 80% of what men made, to 83% of a gap now. Well, that sounds like good news. It is not, I assure you. The reason why that gap narrowed is because so many low-income women and consumer-facing industries lost their jobs. Let's talk about these consumer-facing industries because they're part of the social infrastructure. They are child care, education, health care. You need these social infrastructures in place to get full participation of the labor market. And so when women are hit hard, it's not only bad for the family and for the woman. It's bad for the society because those services that are so critical, especially in advanced countries with aging populations or in countries that need specific informal health care and child care services. So that covers pretty much the globe, am I right? Women are needed to show up at work to help support families and growth. And then if I could say a little bit about where the pockets of wage growth are happening because that's been a big story, this idea that there's this wage price spiral about to be unleashed that will push inflation even further. Actually, where we're seeing the wage increases is in the bottom quartile of the wage distribution. That is the only quartile that is currently seeing year-over-year growth of about 8% that's keeping up with inflation. But we can't just look at growth rates. Levels are important because in that lowest quartile, that's under $2 an hour. That doesn't even come close to buying a gallon of gas. So inflation distorts even good news. We're finally seeing wage growth. But real wages are declining, and they're declining quite quickly for even the middle distribution. And so that issue about skills and enhancing those skills leading to a more productive worker and a growing workforce is the solution. And how to get there, I think, is pointing back to your comments, a combination of business and government cooperation to have a real jobs opportunity and upskilling for low-wage workers. Perfect. JP, we hear a lot about fair wages or a living wage. Can you talk a bit about how we should be thinking about these concepts? What consideration should go into them and how do we get to that point? I'm gonna take the point of view of an employer and probably I share that with you people here on the tables. For me, fair, and by the way, it will echo some of the things you said about women. For me, fair wages are wages that are A, not dependent on gender or race. That's one first point, which is omitted. So we now, for example, in our group, are measuring position by position, the composition of woman versus man and reducing the gap progressively, which is quite complicated, by the way, to do for different reasons. But the second thing also, we're looking at the representation of, as exactly as you said, of women by different level of the strata of the organization, because that's where the biggest gap exists. It's just through the composition of where they go into the pyramid. And there as an employer, if you're going back to your question, the notion of you want to have fair jobs, you need to have HR policies, which basically are allowing to take into consideration maternity leave, I mean, very simple. Single mother with kids, somebody needs to care of the kids that are after four because they are. So you have to take care of these issues in the way you organize the work, in the way you manage career, in the way you basically ensure a return position, in the way you manage the upskilling. And it's rather complicated, I have to say, but if you really collectively as a management team put yourself behind this, there's a lot of things that you can do. If the state on top of that helps by having the right policies, having the right infrastructure, having the right type of vacations and financial support, then you can, it's also easier to do it. For me that's a good point. You raise another question, what's a fair job? What's a fair salary? I think as a business here we have the moral obligation to say that a fair salary is not the lowest salary you can get using competition. Now there's a limit to that because if you do that and you're out of job, out of the market you haven't achieved anything. But there's something where you need to be thinking about your presentation. I mean, isn't it amazing that after all of these years of globalization, technological value creation, everything, you still have this discussion? And why is that? Well, it's very simple. It's because the bargaining power was not on the side of the low-skilled employees. As simple as that, you just had competition through technology, through on-price cost of environmental pollution, through reduction of supply chain improvement, you can basically put into competition a Czech manufacturer, employer, or blue collar against the Chinese, against somebody in Namibia. And then it becomes quite complicated. And unless you have super productive infrastructure, very high quality rule of law, you don't have the right to acquire investment in the country to basically create the jobs that can compete. That's probably one of the issue you have in Latin America where you're lacking the raw productivity to basically compete against the most, the better jobs things, better jobs, paid jobs, sorry. Perfect. Mauricio, you were a government official for a long time and I'm wondering if you can tell us a bit about what types of policies have been most effective, what countries and companies are doing a good job at this? Well, both NLNJP touched on a very important point, which is productivity. Salaries cannot really go in a different direction than productivity. Really too, in the long run to increase salaries, you need to have productivity improvements. So then the big question is, how do you enhance the productivity of a country? What are the key elements there that will allow or enable firms, corporations, small firms to increase productivity? And I guess the list is long, but top in my list are issues related to competition. Make sure that there is enough competition. Make sure that there is adequate provision of public goods, say IT, roads, that electricity, that corporations from the very large to the very small firms can actually benefit from. So productivity is a key element here. Let me bring into the conversation another element, which I think many times in this type of discussion is the elephant in the room, which is the minimum wage. Because minimum wages could be kind of like an easy way out of this problem and say, well, let's raise the minimum wage and then we'll fix the salary problem. And I think we have to be very mindful in making those recommendations because that depends a lot on the institutional setting, on the economic context. So for example, if you're in the United States, certainly raising the minimum wage, it's something that will be positive from a distributional point of view. Allow segments of the population, less skill to basically earn a higher income. But in countries where already 50%, as in my country, Colombia, of the workers earn a salary that is below the minimum wage. Below the minimum wage. That means the minimum wage is not a minimum wage. It's something that is mandated in the law. There's a decree that says this is the minimum wage. But employers at the end in the informal sector end up paying less than the minimum wage. If you raise the minimum wage and you think you're gonna do good because you're gonna basically improve incomes, you may end up producing just the opposite result. You may end up sending more people to the informal sector. So it's not simple. It's not easy solutions. It's not about just saying, we have this aspiration, we're gonna do this. And to me, this points in the direction of something which is even more important, which is this is not just about regulation. This is not about norms. This is not about laws. It's a lot about the way the economy functions, the culture, the organization of companies, the respect for the rule of law. So we need to work in a very comprehensive way. This is not just about fine tuning here and there. It's about really the whole system. So my sense here is that we need to raise salaries, but to do that, we need to have better institutions, better enforcement, and also on the side of employers, more incentives for the employer to hire formal workers, pay both minimum wages. And I think that's doable. When I was finance minister, I thought about this and I said, well, let's cut some taxes that are paid based on the payroll. Contributions that employers had to make based on the payroll. And let's convert that into profits taxes or VAT, but let's not do it thinking in terms of the payroll. And it helped. It did help a lot. That there was a significant reduction of informality. So you have to create the incentives for business to operate and generate the jobs and pay them well. I'd like to zoom out a bit to the global picture and this is a question for any of the three of you, but we're at a point where a lot of companies are rethinking globalization. They're talking about maybe moving their manufacturing facilities or sort of reimagining their supply chains. And that has a big impact, of course, on where jobs are located or how much they pay. And I'm wondering how that might impact sort of the inequality that we see from country to country and from sector. I can try that one. And then if I may, I'd like to talk about the cost of living adjustment as well. There are two trends that keep labor markets from being completely local. One is demographics, meaning that in rich countries, you have this issue that a lot of workers will soon be retiring if they haven't already due to the pandemic. So the aging of the workforce, especially in key sectors, like bus drivers that carry kids to and from school or accountants is a real problem that could be solved by immigration, but it could be solved by a new economy that isn't as dependent on location. And so the second trend that you really see emerging, especially after the pandemic is this idea of digitization, e-commerce. Now, most of the jobs that we're talking about can't be done remotely, but what is also the case is that businesses, if they haven't already are going to accelerate, are investing in labor-saving technologies. And that is the future. And so what's on the horizon is whether more of these labor-saving technologies replace jobs instead of enhance jobs. And the only way to prevent that from happening globally is to make sure that low-skilled workers have product of enhancements. So those technologies actually help them do their jobs better, which leads to a better profitability for their companies and leads to more growth in wages for good reasons that we've described here. And so just to put some numbers around it, over the past 30 years in the United States leading up to the pandemic, the bottom 10% of workers in terms of wages, their wages grew about 1.6%. The middle, about 6%. The top 90%, anyone want to guess? 300%. Hundreds. Okay, 37%. That's huge. But it was big in comparison. It's big by itself. And that's because you see that skill premium at the high end. The skill premium was the source of the inequality. And so that goes back to the original point that that skills premium needs to not be a premium any longer. And then the final question I wanted to address is you can't look at wages in isolation. There's also this cost of living component. And we tend to think of these as two separate roles when they're actually related. The fact that there is shortages in supply, shortages in affordable housing, shortages in access to education and childcare and internet means that the cost of living is rising and we're not doing anything to control those costs. So part of having a living wage is making sure that we have a livable community and neighborhood by investing in schools, childcare, broadband and infrastructure that makes it easier to work. And not so challenging to make up that lost income. Now to, from a business perspective, what you ask is a question is, I can see that it's gonna have the following implication. One is you probably will have less foreign direct investment in the countries where a lot of the supply chain was invested in. And that's not gonna be good news for these countries. I can see probably some good news for the lower income part of the countries where you have reshoring but I can see impact on the inflation which might very well eat up all of the increase in labor that you will get. Now to your point about the skill, the skill premium, I think we've seen over the last 30 years some mental shift in what was acceptable in terms of genie coefficient or difference between salary for very senior talented people and less talented people where all of a sudden it is okay to grab if you're the top 10% of a corporation to grab part of the profit you generate not because of your own work but because you're leveraging equity, because you're leveraging scale of other people. And the minute that happens then obviously you're unleashing a potential for increased compensation for very senior people which frankly speaking at when you look at it as an investor is not justified because it's sheer luck. It's obviously if you're the CEO of a very, very large corporation you can be paid 10 million because of the fraction of everything that is spent it's nothing but it doesn't mean it should be worth 10 million it's just still you're selling your time but that mental barrier has been broken and by now you face this question how can you even imagine you're hiring somebody that wouldn't be paid at least as much? And that's basically just been driving what you saw as difference in increase in compensation for the talented people and the less talented people that are only selling their time. So if I may have a take on your question which is at the end of the day the extension between the global and the local and with the promise that we're seeing today in a very complex situation of the world today are we moving into the local and therefore would that mean more opportunities for jobs and salaries? And if you think about the crisis of today what we're having is a whole new generation of crisis you know the COVID crisis the food crisis today the climate crisis and they get compounded by the way they're all interrelated and they can become catastrophic. And one of the responses to this new generation of crisis is well we're going to rely more on our own capabilities that's the reshoring aspect or nearshoring our neighbors or now the word and I'm sure you covered that speech in the Washington Post by Diana Yellen the secretary of the Treasury of the United States she was talking about French shoring so it's like well now we're gonna rely on this group of countries that we know they're not gonna start a war with us because they're suppliers of these key strategic products. So I really think this age of super optimization is like you go for the cheapest source of every single item in your value chain. It's over. The super optimization is not gonna stay there for one reason because super optimization does not build resilience. It's not resilient. You need to have ability to adapt to these shocks to these very uncertain, unpredictable events. You need resilience. Now we value much more resilience than two years ago before the COVID. So in building resilience you have to work with your communities. You have to work with your employees. You have to make sure that you have to worry about their entire well-being because that's what makes firms succeed. And it's not about super optimizing you know, making sure that every item, every element, every component of your value chain is outsourced to the most efficient one. No, this is about making sure that the whole structure is operational. Perfect. We have about 10 or 15 minutes left. So I'd like to open it up for audience questions. Does anybody have a question? Hi, thank you. I deeply appreciate this conversation. I just wonder whether you think there is enough attention to the topic as an issue that particularly with the talent, you know, with the talent scarcity is paid attention, you know, like it's discussed. I very, very particularly, I care about Latinas in America, US Latinas, 9% of the population, there are 31 million people and the least paid in the entire country. Not even Latinas know that there's such a deep gap. And the disparity of the wages is not so much in the lower income as much as in the higher income. So I don't think necessarily there's a magic bullet, but if there's any, you know, like in a way outside of, you know, like in America being what it is, if there's anything that in particularly, in particular you can address about like corporate recommendations that could be addressed based on business case in favor of, you know, like based on what they, companies would like to see for retention of talent that right nowadays is an issue. If I could say a word about that, because it touches a very important issue and close to me. You know, everyone is talking about these days about ESG, right? ESG as a metric, ESG as a new standard, ESG is the word of the day or the acronym of the day. And, you know, everyone knows it's environment. It's a G for governance, but the social dimension is there. So really companies that want to abide by high ESG standards, they need to make sure that the social level, and it includes for example, the labor force and how they remunerate and what are the practices and the scales and the differences between the top and the minimum paid jobs in that corporation. I mean, all of that has to become evident. So we should take advantage of the fact that ESG involves metrics. So you have to measure and you have to show. But let's ensure that those metrics include, for example, issues of how do you remunerate, how do you pay everyone that is working with you, including, you know, different groups. And make sure that you're doing something about this because what you're talking about is really an example of double discrimination. If I could pick up on Mauricio's point, I think that benchmarking is so critical to progress. But benchmarking without accountability is just an exercise in futility. You need some kind of accountability and hopefully the investment community is one. But another one is young workers. If you look at the data, you see exactly your point about where the gaps are the widest. Women represent about a quarter of senior management even though they're roughly 50% of the workforce in the United States. The gaps get wider as women age as they become more tenured and experienced relative to where they begin their careers that doesn't help them in this pay gap. It actually makes it worse. And it doesn't matter if a woman is in an industry with a lot of other women, like in education, the gaps are one of the widest in education between men and women. It doesn't matter if it's a highly lucrative field like finance, another place where the gaps are really wide. So you can see the gaps in every angle. So the benchmark's important, but what's equally important is accountability. I came originally from the tech world and they would always put out these statistics on their diversity numbers. And I used to call it the brotherhood of the lowest common denominator. It was almost like there was this comfort in knowing that every company was not making progress. And so it's not our fault for not making progress. And I think that accountability was missing. It's coming from investors, but it's also coming from younger workers. When we survey workers around the globe, there is a huge value on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and pay equity. And so the future of the workforce really values this and young people are voting with their feet when they have that opportunity. They are only supporting companies and working at companies that reflect their values. And so I think that's another source of accountability, which can help narrow the gaps in the future. Perfect. Any other questions? All right, in the front row. Thank you. Maybe more, three reflections that I'm struggling with from a European perspective. And so it's more a question, what would you do about it? Or do you see that happening as well? The first one is that I see middle-class jobs are quickly disappearing. So we end up with the high premium jobs, and we end up with low-scaled, low-paying jobs that there are numerous. The second one is it's not just about salary, at least not in the Netherlands and France where it worked as well. It's also about scheduling. It's about culture on the work floor. It's about being able to combine different jobs. So basically the whole package. And the third one is the gap that you're talking about is not just along salary. It's also along contract form. Because a contract form really makes it for people that they are actually insured against illness, that they build up their pensions. And that's where I see the biggest gap at the moment. Yes, in salaries as well, but in contract form. So basically what we end up with is a huge, a number of low-scaled, low-paid flex workers and then some very high-paid people with a fixed contract that are able to pay out bonuses. And what you see as an effect for the middle class is that not even though they see their own jobs disappearing, they have to fear that they will fall down to that level of low-paid, low-scaled jobs instead of being able to upscale to those higher-paid jobs. Reflections. And thus a struggle how to solve it. Where you stunk us all. Yeah, just that reflection, it's not an answer. It's a reflection. In today's world, and we haven't talked much about that, you raise the point, especially after COVID, people want flexibility. People want to be able to decide when and how to work, work from home, go to the office. Flexibility is now much more value than in the past. But our labor codes are not very good at that. They're not really made that we're not designed for providing that type of flexibility. So people that want flexibility, especially low-skilled, they really have to go to the informal sector, which is not good. So we need to redesign our labor laws. So we keep protection. Protection is fundamental. But at the same time, providing of flexibility. I think that the new job market it's going to be a job market where the workers would look not just at the compensation, the salary, but will look also at their ability to adjust, to organize their lives in a way that doesn't compromise their remuneration. The flexibility factor is key. And we see that workers are actually willing to trade off a little bit of wages for flexibility. But I also think for the middle class, at least in the United States, what's also missing is wealth creation. And that used to come from a house. The fact that you had four savings through a 30-year mortgage into an investment vehicle called a house that you lived in actually helped build the middle class. And now the middle class can't afford that house. And before the pandemic, there was a real issue about labor mobility, which also helps close gaps when you have a mobile labor force. And for a long time, the US actually enjoyed that. But that slowed recently because you couldn't afford to go where the good jobs were being produced because it was too expensive to live here, lived there along the coast. My hope is that we've broken up some of the geographical barriers to mobility, not for every job, especially not for clerical jobs, maybe not for certain middle management jobs, but that there is not, you're not pigeonholed by your location. And if that's the case, then hopefully there will be more opportunities in terms of upscaling. I do think for the middle class, the key question is how do you adapt to the future? Because the job that you have now is likely to change and it's really going to be, again, that partnership between government and business and adapting that level of worker to the new economy that's coming. But that is, by the way, it is happening. I was, and we see it in our business, the salary for IT workers, IT developers, tech people in small cities has matched the level of salary in the big cities, just like this. Because anyway, they work remotely. They work via Zoom, they work via team. So for this type of people that is happening extremely quickly, and for the time being, it's playing to the benefit of the people in the lower paid region. It might, at some point, play differently because with technology you can close shore if you really wanted to. It's unfortunately not going to help for the customer facing lower paid jobs in the restaurant and all of this. I, by the way, totally echo with you. I think the problem with the middle class hasn't been that the job disappeared. Is that what you could afford with these middle class salaries before is not there anymore. Because government have been under, investment infrastructure has been under investors because schools, public schools are becoming lousy. Therefore you go to private schools. Well, before, at least in Europe, you would basically get a standard service for that. And therefore middle class person could save and buy your house. So I don't know if this job disappeared or just in French with a properization or an impoverishment. So yeah, that's the word I was looking for. Impoverishment of the middle class. Perfect. Well, thank you guys all for joining us and thank you to the panelists for a great discussion.