 All right. How are we, everybody? It's four o'clock. It's four o'clock. Hopefully you grabbed some coffee a moment ago, like I did. Cool. So I'm Sam Witherby. I'm the director of social entrepreneurship at Peers. And today, we're going to have a conversation about the sharing economy and the future of work. I'm going to say a few words upfront before my esteemed panelists have a chance to introduce themselves. We're then going to have a quick discussion for about half an hour as a panel up on stage before leaving a half an hour in closing for audience Q&A. We want to make sure we hear from you. So my background is as an organizer, whether working on the Obama campaign more deep faith-based community organizing. And my interest in the sharing economy as an organizer really stems from this idea that there's tremendous change going on. And I really see that with change, there's opportunity to build new systems and rethink the ways that things are built and people are supported. So what are these changes that we're talking about? What is the future of work and how is it changing? And I think that the big trend that we want to talk about today is the way in which more and more people are no longer working for a single employer in nine to five jobs and more people are cobbling together different activities and income streams to support themselves. The Freelancers Union, which is an organization that's very visionary in this space and has been talking about these issues for about 15 years now, estimate that there are 40 million independent workers in the US right now. A lot of these changes have been driven by the internet disrupting industries like design and legal, where more and more people are working as independent contractors in those spaces. Right now, industries like travel and transportation are starting to be disrupted by sharing economy platforms. And we're sort of on the cusp of new models emerging in spaces like food and energy, which we think will continue to drive that type of shift. So a lot of what I want to talk about today is whether this is a good thing. It's something that's happening, but is this good? What are the risks and what are the opportunities? More and more people, when you talk to them about working as a Lyft driver or as an Etsy seller, will tell you that it's nice to make your own money, but also to be able to set their own schedule and to have creative control over what they're doing. But also on the flip side of that, there are serious questions absent a single employer about, well, who will support this emerging workforce? Where will they get the services that an employer would typically have provided in the previous centuries model? So these are the types of questions that we're gonna be talking about today. And could not be more excited to have this panel to discuss it with. Denise Chang is a researcher from MIT who's been doing a lot of research on the sharing economy and assessing what the needs are of providers within the sharing economy. Tim Freudlich is a co-founder of the Impact Hub, and the Impact Hub is a co-working space a couple of blocks away as the San Francisco one. And the Impact Hub has really been a space where micro-entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs have congregated to build community as they work as independent contractors oftentimes. Lupin Saran works for the San Francisco Office of Workforce and Economic Development and is currently overseeing a grant from the Department of Labor thinking about the city's strategy for the future of work and is very much considering sharing economy models and some of these trends as she thinks about where the direction of future jobs will be. And then David Rolf is a Vice President at the International Service Employees International Union, as well as the head of the SEIU 775 in Washington State and comes from a labor background and has been a vocal leader within the union movement about the union's need to look ahead at the ways in which jobs will be changing over the next 20 and 30 years and the need to adapt to that. So with that, we'd love to in that order give each of the panelists about five minutes to introduce themselves, talk a little bit about where you're coming from, and then share a little bit of your perspective about where are we going here and is that a good thing? What are some of the threats and what are some of the opportunities? So Denise, if you wanna kick us off. Hi everyone, I'm Denise. I have been looking at the peer economy now, which is what I call it, actually peer-to-peer marketplaces that enable people to monetize skills and assets that they already have. But I've been looking at it for about two years now and not just looking at it from afar, but actually talking a lot to investors, to companies, to labor advocates, to people who are working in these situations to really get a sense of what are the needs in this area. What I look at is how to build a worker support infrastructure in the peer economy. So to kind of give you an idea of the opportunity, when I first started looking at the subject, I was actually really excited because to me it represented a way to include people who have been defined out of the traditional workplace. I've lived in a lot of different places now and I've seen under employment and what it looks like in a lot of different states. And as I moved from place to place, it's just really struck me that this whole idea of nine to five was just becoming less and less attainable for people. So what are other ways that people can still be part of the economy? And to me, when I looked at the peer economy, the idea of being able to monetize skills or assets that are already at your disposal was at least a lower barrier to entry than the idea of having a lot of human capital and human capital meaning things like really high education expertise, which already there is a very tight market for. So that was sort of the opportunity that I saw was just how do you bring people back into it? Can you use micro businesses and exit strategy for people who are homeless, for people who are at risk for human trafficking, for marginalized communities and so on and so forth. But what I think actually is the threat to this area is that even though there are all of these different benefits that Sam talked about just a moment ago, the work flexibility and some ways you're doing things on your own terms, you don't necessarily need to have an office depending on which platform you participate on in thinking groups like Etsy or BNB, Uber, Lyft, Skillshare, kitchen surfing, a lot of these different groups. Even though there is a lot of flexibility and you are doing things on your own terms, you are also on your own in a way. And it doesn't necessarily seem like it because we always call this sharing, but actually in a lot of ways, for a lot of people who are participating in this, this is the first time that they haven't been an employee for some group or another. And they may have been employees that weren't employed full time or maybe were paid poorly, but there is actually a really important distinction to this. The fact that you are an independent contractor in the peer economy means that you have to pay your own self-employment taxes, you are responsible for liability if things go wrong. And this is something that a lot of people don't necessarily understand. Now where this matters is that you have to be able to plan for that if you are gonna have no buffer. And this is something that requires a lot of foresight. And one of the things I think is really important actually is financial literacy in this area. If you don't know what the difference is between income and profit, then that's gonna hurt you. If you can't plan for seasonal issues that go on, like maybe during conference season, sales force in San Francisco, you can raise your prices on Airbnb and you have no problem booking new guests, but then later on in the season you might have that problem. If you can't plan for those things, then it becomes a lot harder to be an independent. And so while everybody talks a lot about the different categories in the peer economy, they talk about transportation, they talk about food, they talk about small scale manufacturing, personal services, where I actually see the difference in where I wanna encourage people to see the difference in categories is actually in the idea of upward bounds. So to give you an example, let's say you are somebody who's just dipping their toes into all of this on Etsy. Maybe you start out as a hobbyist, you start your own shop and then you decide, well actually I really like this, I wanna continue with it. So now you become a small business or it becomes more than just supplementary income. And maybe you're doing really well and then at that point you say, okay, well now I wanna find distributors. And so you start to create a distributor network. And maybe you grow to the point because you can still continue to go up. The bounds are a lot higher. Then at that point maybe you say, I wanna be a wholesaler. When you think about all of those different steps that you can take on Etsy, that's not necessarily true of every platform. And so one of the things that I think if we're really gonna talk about this as a realistic work model is we can't just talk about it in terms of verticals. We actually have to talk about it in terms of what are the opportunities in these platforms that are specific to those platforms. And then also because people have limited assets in terms of times, how can you actually mix and match some of these things so that even if you can't make a significant income off of one platform by your participation in multiple platforms and in maximizing your time or your resources, you can actually make something that is livable. Thanks, Denise. Tim. That was a lot. I'm like, go. How do I approach this question? Hi, I'm Tim. And I've been super involved over the last three, four years in this emergent global network of hubs, communities of co-working kind of collaborated, collaborating social entrepreneurs around the world and that currently is at 50 sites, including the San Francisco one down at the Chronicle Building at fifth and Mission and across five continents, 25 countries, thousands and thousands and thousands of social entrepreneurs, nonprofits, for-profits, startups, later stage, sole proprietors, consultants who serve them, philanthropists, funders, and you name it, mentors, et cetera, et cetera. So a real diverse kind of human capital platform for the exchange of people, of ideas, of capital, different kinds of capital, a skills acquisition, that sort of thing, all within a fun work club housey environment that you can use as a lifestyle platform if you want. Apparently people are getting married, having kids, all sorts of stuff that I won't go into. I guess, so that's sort of my point of view to this is what I would call a hyper-networked global, local, is a pan-local kind of platform for people getting shizzy done together. And something that I think is the more it's spread out and interconnected across the globe, the more interesting I find it. And that's kind of how I got into it as it was actually a kind of a failed impact investment that we were looking at making from a fund that I was involved in and we thought we were gonna do this Starbucks sort of top-down global co-working thing for social entrepreneurs. And we kind of looked at it and said, you know what, it's gonna be much more of a federated co-op, kind of an indigenous operating company model at the local level. Let's convert this idea with all these folks into more of a co-op, kind of a horizon's dairy farmer, so instead of dairy farmers, they're co-working sites around the world. And there's one of these opening up every month, which is I think pretty appalling to me. But also amazing. So you know what, from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo to Tel Aviv to London, three in London, Oakland opened a month and a half ago, Tribeca and New York City is literally opening right now. But this hyper networked kind of ecosystem play where people really are exchanging ideas and capital and media content and all of that, that's really based on a deep-seated amount of affinity. That being values integration and purpose and work and vocation and the breakdown of the boundaries that we normally thought of between your social life and your work life and your philanthropy and your consumption and your investing. I mean, this is what we're trying to build and I think it is the future of collaborative entrepreneurship. I think one out, somebody's been doing this for like 17, 18 years of sort of the social investing stuff. Really, we just look forward to a time where we don't say social entrepreneur or social investor or impact economy. It's just, it's the economy's stupid, right? And it's, everybody brings a lens to it that incorporates a value set. I mean, in fact, this is already the case. If you think about the way people really, truly lead their lives, there's not this false sort of bifurcation between what matters and making a buttload of money. It's like you just, you try to integrate all this stuff in your life and make these decisions. So, at any rate, so we're mostly seeing this as a really positive kind of meme and zeitgeist shift where, those are two good words, they're where people are more overtly and sort of, I don't know, articulately repatriating the stuff that's always mattered into their consumption, their vocation, their investment, their social lives meeting their collaborative work lives. And I really, I mean, honestly, I was like, what could be bad about that? And again, I'm coming out with a particular facet, which is literally physical, proximate community that really creates the really interesting intersections and sort of creative collisions and all that kind of good stuff. And I don't think that there's, I mean, I'd say that somebody who's, I also eat the dog food and my day job, this is sort of my fascination in a group that I've been really involved as a board member, my day job is actually in this sort of investing for good world. And I have a team in Tribeca that's just moving in there. I work out of the one here. I've got a team in DC waiting for that one to open up. I mean, we're using it and I will say that the quiet and the value, I've really gotten very clear about what my home office is for and what going out to lunch is for and things like that. But at the same time, I think of San Francisco and my professional kind of collaborative life as before hub and after hub. And before, I was seeing people who lived and worked 12 blocks away at a conference in Oxford once a year or in some other conference and stuff like that. You just have the same conversations about like, oh, well, we're really gonna get something done together and go out and hang out and stuff. But you get so busy, it's a fractured, right? People are all over the place. So I really think that the rediscovery of sort of community and iterative proximity and with real density and diversity is really great. And density meaning literally, and this is the sharing economy piece of it, 40 square foot per person. High density office conventionally is 200. Historic conventional office space closer to 300 square foot per person, 40. And that's on average. That's I think that's more kilowatts per hour, less kilowatts per hour per person and all of that. But I'm gonna stop because I'm 22 seconds over. Look at that. I feel pressured to time myself now. That's what he was doing on his laptop. I wasn't texting, yeah, I was tweeting. I thought he was texting in the middle of a presentation. And another neat thing. God, I'm so cool. There will be no tweeting from the panel. Sorry, too late. Hi, I'm Lupin. I work for the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development. I'm specifically in the Workforce Development Division and I'm gonna explain what that means because I can't see most of you, but has anyone heard of what workforce development? There's some hands up. You guys make me so happy, the minority. So workforce development, we are the division that is really responsible for conducting a lot of activities around policies and programs that really focus on creating and sustaining a viable workforce that can support the local economy. And what we do really is the goal of workforce development in conjunction with economic development is really to have vibrant communities. And what we focus on specifically is really around the workforce. And the mandate, so we get funded through the Department of Labor and I specifically work on a grant from the Department of Labor called the Workforce Innovation Fund. So this is the federal government's attempt to sort of try new things and experiment a little bit. And so I lost my track there. Sorry. What we're doing with the grant is really trying to explore what new economies look like. And that's part of why I'm here today is we're trying to wrap our heads around what the future of work is going to look like and what the role of a workforce development system is in preparing residents. Traditionally, what we look at that our mandate is to serve people who need assistance. The reason that most of you didn't raise your hand is that you entered the world of work on your own. Maybe you had a guidance counselor in high school or college, but most people tend to sort of be okay and they went to the workforce without much assistance. But there are quite a few people who need help with that. We've got young people in high school who've never worked or the formerly incarcerated people who are experiencing homelessness. People are on public assistance. People have been laid off. There's been massive amounts of dislocation as a result of the recession. And so what we're trying to do with this grant and in the field in general is think about how work is evolving and what that means to these populations who need the extra help. And when I was invited to come to this, I thought, okay, the pure economy. Generally, when I think of that, I think of people who have some sort of asset that they can monetize and make money off of. And so you've got your car and you become a lift driver. You've got your home or your apartment and you make money off of that. And I think one of the challenges from our perspective is that there are quite a few people who don't have those assets. And so they cannot monetize them because they don't exist for them. And even Tim was talking about a network. What we find is a lot of you and probably more so for younger people have an extensive network established through, usually through college or graduate school and through work and through family structures. And a lot of the folks that we work with don't even have that network. And so it's not only an asset that they can monetize, it's just the infrastructure of their life that doesn't exist. And that makes it particularly challenging, participating in something like a peer economy. So that's sort of two threads that we're looking at is the peer economy. But what I think our main focus is really around this idea of gig work. And we have an experiment with our traditional information and communication technology, our tech sector academy. And we're working on helping folks participate in that economy through gigs primarily. And that's sort of helping them with some of the financial literacy that Denise mentioned, some of the other infrastructure that will enable them to participate in this economy. Tech is booming in San Francisco. I'm not sure how many of you are local, but it's sort of the it thing now. And it's expensive to live here. And so what we wanna do is help these folks access that economy through gigs. And there's a lot of concern around the social infrastructure. When you're a freelancer, you don't necessarily get unemployment. You're not paying into retirement. You could just have done a month long gig and invested thousands of dollars of your time and then you don't get paid. So what are the recourse for that? Taxes, there's all kinds of things that are challenging to this and we're trying to figure it out. And we don't have the answers. And I'm not here, I'm probably not going to present a lot of answers. What we're trying to explore as a department is what it means when we're looking at more and more people having gig work. So traditionally, the workforce development system looks at our measures. We look at full-time employment, we look at benefits, we look at hourly wage. Well, if people are gonna be cobbling together work, as Sam said, what does it look like to be successful? How do we measure self-sufficiency and how do we ensure that vulnerable populations are able to participate? Great. Thanks. Good afternoon. I'm David Rolf. I'm an organizer by trade. Like Sam, in my case, I'm a union organizer. I'm the founder and president of SCIU 775, which is Washington State's largest local union and international vice president of SCIU. And I am the founder and chairman of two related not-for-profit organizations, one in the workforce development space for certified home care aides and the other is a large health plan. I sort of look, I mean, we're talking about the future of work. And so I sort of look at it this way, is that we had the fortune or misfortune, however we view it to be born and come of age during the third great economic revolution in human history. We had roughly 3,000 years of an agricultural revolution, roughly 300 years of an industrial revolution. And we're now in the 30th or 40th year of a technological revolution and information revolution that will ultimately change almost everything when it comes to the economy and work in particular. You know, work is historically a reasonably recent concept. It was the idea of a job was something that originated in the Middle Ages when vagrancy became a crime. Vagrancy met an able-bodied person not engaged in work during the from sun up to sun down, more or less in English common law. But as recently as Abraham Lincoln's time, only 20% of adults in the US were wage earners. The rest were largely farmers in small family farms. They were craftsmen in individual craft workshops, indentured servants of those craftspeople, or of course slaves. And in the century and a half since then, we have seen this arc of the industrial economy booming and creating a sort of standard regulated by the clock workday that was not really true for any of human history before that and may not be true for human history in the somewhat, I'd say mid to distant future. What we know right now is that today most people in America still practice relative serial monogamy with respect to their employer, one employer at a time. They are still wage earners for the most part, but things are changing. As of 2006, approximately 31% of the US workforce was not in a standard full-time job. They were part-time or contingent, temporary freelance. No one said the gig economy back then or the share economy, but some form of non-traditional, less than full-time employment. One, the Labor Department hasn't studied that since 2006. It's queued up again for 2015, but one gets the sense that the great financial collapse was an accelerant to the proliferation of non-standard employment situations. And when they measure again, it could, you know, Carl Camden, the president of the CEO of Kelly Services, thinks that by the end of the decade we'll be at over 50% in some form of contingent or part-time or non-standard work. This has a lot of implications, but let me start with just the question of income and wages. Because at the same time this has been happening, we've seen a 40-year assault on the standards of living for the bottom 90% of income earners in the US. One who was honest, sober, hardworking, physically healthy and had a high school or less education two generations ago could reasonably expect to get hired by an industrial job, work that job for their lifetime, earn their gold, watch their pension, have health care for themselves and their family, and retire with a paid-for home, with a chain-link fence and a little plot of land somewhere. And that hope that on one person's salary, by the way, because the net economic impact of women doubling their workforce participation from 1977 to 2012 was actually $0 in take-home pay for the bottom 90% of income earning families. But that dream of being able to go to work, spend 40 years working, retire with dignity and with permanent financial security while raising a family and sending kids to school is essentially gone. That is a memory from a different generation and a different time. And when one looks at virtually any statistic on wages, retirement security, or health care over the last generation, especially when you can then compare them to the cost of things like college education, housing, or access to health care, you get a very bleak picture of what's happening in our economy. Where while Brazil and China are figuring out how to grow a middle class, we are systematically figuring out how to destroy ours. So whether you believe that there is a future to the thing we call work and jobs really relates to your views on Moore's Law. If Moore's Law sort of peters out like the technological innovations that accompany the transition from steam to electrical power in the next few years, then probably due to declining in migration and declining birth rates, we will see a resurgence of work, tighter labor markets, a shortage of workers, and the winners will be those who can connect skilled workers to work. On the other hand, if Moore's Law continues, there may not be much more work for us to do. Right now, if people know Watson can diagnose lung cancer better than New York's best oncologists. Soon, you'll be able to take a Tylenol-sized blood draw, have the white blood cells reprogrammed to eat the cancer in your body, and then eat themselves so they don't eat anything they're not supposed to, which will put much of the medical profession out of work. And so if what we ultimately care about is economic dignity for humankind, self-actualization for adults so that our identities and our fulfillment is not, and our civic participation in our life as citizens of a democracy is not tied to permanent economic subservience to an employer or a serial group of employers, then we have a lot of work to do. And whether or not that, the share of you guys is relatively new. It's one innovation. We will all see where it goes. It's still small. It's growing incredibly fast. But I would just suggest by way of sort of concluding my opening here that whether that's the jobs of the future, whether there are no jobs in the future and technology replaces most of what we now consider to be work, what we really have to all work on together is, I think what a couple of you have alluded to, the question of how do we figure income supports? How do we figure benefits? How do we figure a theory of economic dignity for the vast majority of us? Because the world in which only the 1% prosper and the 90% don't is ultimately not a sustainable political world and the future where the unemployed or underemployed college grads living in mom and dad's basement with $50,000 worth of debt can see what the rich are doing in real time on their cell phones is a particularly disruptive one. So those are my thoughts. Cool. All right, so Denise, for the past two years has been doing research for her dissertation, which have you turned it in? Yeah, I just turned it in. Thank you. And part of that research was working in the field, speaking with individuals that are task rabbits, that are Etsy sellers, Airbnb hosts, Lyft drivers, people who are really on the cutting edge of taking that step and actually, quote, working in the sharing economy. You know, to understand a little bit more about why are they, you know, why are they doing that? What did you hear in terms of what their motivations are and what drives them to want to do these activities? Many times leaving traditional employment. So I guess one of the first things, and you've probably heard this in several other sessions as well that's talked about or that has discussed peer-to-peer marketplaces is that money is the very first reason that people come to these platforms. If you're not in love with the idea that's not what brought you to this platform. So in other words, if you're not one of those early doctors who's always keeping up on the latest startup that just came out and you're like jumping on board, then money really becomes very important and maybe as time goes on, you have other reasons that you wanna stay on the platform. Perhaps there's aspects of community, but ultimately, if that financial incentive isn't there, then people will eventually leave that platform. Part of the reason that the peer economy has been really attractive and really, I would say, charismatic in a way is because it allows people to have flexibility. Again, it allows people who are maybe in a non-traditional workplace or at home or maybe they've been forced into retirement. Maybe they have different types of physical ableness. These are people who suddenly have a chance to become part of the economy again. They're not necessarily thinking about it as, yes, I can be part of the economy. They're really thinking about it as, I can earn an income. And that's a really, really important incentive. Flexibility, again and again, is something that I've heard and for some of these as well, it's an aspect of creativity. Connection is definitely there as well. So these are all themes that you've heard already, but at the end of the day, I think it's really important to remember that it comes back to money. People do, in fact, value that. That is probably the most important thing on these. But yeah, I think that one thing that I've noticed, which is very interesting, is I know that there are a lot of media stories about journalists going undercover as a peer economy provider and finding out at the end that they really can't make it as a peer economy provider. And they do this as TaskRabbit. So you do this as Airbnb hosts. They do this as a Lyft driver or Uber driver. And this is a really interesting perspective. Actually, I think it's really great because what they're doing is really they're just calling out the founders on their sort of language around sharing and solidarity and all of that. And just like that, this is the new face of work. But actually, what I think is really interesting is the people who I've seen who are the happiest in these situations are people for whom this is kind of a horizontal move. So it's people who are driving shuttles for airports and for hotels who are suddenly really happy that they can now be their own driver because this is what allows them not to have to work the night shift so that they can actually spend the day with their kids. These are the people who I see as the most satisfied. And that is a very different perspective than the people who are writing these stories about can you really make it and can you really have a lifestyle that we all dream of on this type of income? So working with peers, I've had the chance to meet individuals who are sharing economy providers from across the world. It's always an incredibly inspiring experience. And having conversations with them to try to get a sense of what some of their core needs are. The first thing that'll come up is people's concern about the legality of the sharing economy. But digging a little bit deeper and starting to talk about with them if they're full-time sharing economy providers, issues of where's my healthcare gonna come from? If this economic activity slows down, will I have enough money to get through February or whatever month it is? I'm not saving anything for retirement. So digging a little bit, these start to reveal themselves as like really great points of anxiety. And the default response that I see oftentimes from individuals is they'll turn to the platforms and think, oh, you should give me this insurance or I deserve healthcare from you Lyft because I'm kind of your employee. And I think it's very much coming from the mindset of employer employee. But I don't know moving ahead whether that is the appropriate response or thought. And David, I'm particularly interested in hearing from you from a perspective of building new types of worker power, building new systems for employees to bargain for themselves or to get the resources and meet their needs. What are the opportunities that you see there coming from your background? Well, first, people should consider themselves lucky both from the platform side and the provider side that they are not bound by the 20th century's labor and employment laws that largely fuel and regulate this sort of labor management paradigm that unions and large employers operate within. It was a perfectly optimized system for the industrial economy of 1935. It is increasingly inaccessible to the vast majority of American workers in the 21st century, and we need to invent something new. What exactly that looks like? That's fine. What exactly that looks like? I don't think we know, right? Because collective bargaining and the legacy systems of the 20th century have taken up all the air in the room. The level of risk or innovation in this space has been very low. There is not yet, we hope to build one, but there is not yet a wide combinator for future forms of worker power in emerging economic sectors or in a globalized economy. And so I think that the challenge we have is really to build something or more likely some things as organizational platforms, legal systems, overseas, cyber terrorists, whatever, whatever, that can replicate the power, scale, and sustainability of the 20th century collective bargaining model, which did, after all, create a vast middle class, empowered two generations of economic growth and sustainability in this country, but that's fallen apart, and the social compact and employment situation of the last century has fallen apart. So the question is what's gonna replace it, and I think the huge opportunity here is that in the shared economy, you're not actually employees, in most cases, of the platform, and the platform's not, in most cases, your employer, and therefore, you're not prohibited by law to have, it's not a felony to collaborate between labor and management, it's a commingle funds, I mean, literally, it's a felony. You can have a platform that's actually aligned towards some level of collaboration in shared outcomes, as well as respecting different interests and the fact that there is gonna be real economic tension, and I think for all the people in the room who are, in fact, start-up people on innovators and who like to think of themselves as all about finding the next big thing, I would, my suggestion or advice is this is an area that's really under-explored. I mean, the good news is that with Obamacare, we can now get our healthcare without having to get it through a large employer. The bad news is most people who do this work still struggle to make ends meet. It's still low-wage, blue-collar work, and how to find the right platform to lever, in the private sector, to leverage a different distribution of the rewards of innovation is, in some ways, the most critical question facing the innovation economy. Cool. It's good stuff. So one other thing that I hear quite a bit about is that oftentimes sharing economy providers can feel like they're working alone, where they used to work in a call center and it was incredibly boring to pick up the phone and just call through the list over and over again, but they had peers next to them, right? And so, Tim, I'd be really interested from your perspective about the importance of community to well-being and work. And beyond that, the term micro-entrepreneurs gets used quite a bit to talk about sharing economy providers. And I think a lot of times they might not see themselves as that as much as we might project that onto them, but would also, in addition, be interested in hearing from you about the importance of community and in driving entrepreneurship. Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think, and when you were just saying resonates me too, I think that the opportunity to sort of rediscover the social contract in community, which has largely been lost in a lot of leases culture in my experience as a San Franciscan too. It's like, there's a huge amount, and money does motivate, you know, I'll give you that, but actually, I don't think that money is really what motivates a lot of people first and foremost. I think it's a tool. I think relationships and trust and affinity and again, social contract and passion and vocation. I think that's what motivates people is the discovery and fulfillment of a life well-lived. A life well-lived, most people, unless they're sociopaths or something, are generally, is partly measured by the strength of the ties of interaction and trust and relationship. So, I mean, again, it's like, it can be a really lonely place, especially if you're a gig worker or you're disconnected from a company. Companies used to serve this purpose, right? They used to do a lot of things like professional development, provide full benefits packages, retirement. Identity. Identity. Gold watch. You know, I'm an IBM guy, you know, whatever. So, I think that the opportunity here, which really does tell us what you're saying, it's both, I mean, I think that the rewire kind of that ecosystem of support and fulfillment and trust and relationship-based thing is it's really what's on the table. It's not a platform. It's not, it's a lot of different platforms. It's really kind of what it's, you know, the more collaborative it is and more interactive it is, the better. And I think, I mean, what we're saying is that there's a lot of opportunity to really experiment on some of these facets of things that maybe the old industrial complex used to, you know, provide to some extent around professional development skills acquisition, interaction with peers, professional services, you know, benefits, sort of group purchasing, all that kind of stuff really lives quite naturally. And I think that's kind of where this is going. But again, you know, to your point or your question, it's like, I think that this sort of rediscovery in place of real trust-based and affinity-based connectedness is really a to-do that needs to be done. Can I add to that real quick? Definitely. One of the things, so I don't know if that was clear, but peers and I actually did some research together back in January talking to various providers. And one thing that I think does speak nicely to what you're saying is that, so the reason that I say money matters is because these platforms kind of need to attract people on more than just ideology. But groups, platforms that do cultivate a sense of community actually do seem to have a competitive advantage against other companies that are basically offering the exact same model. Companies that offer community when things get rough, their providers are much more likely to stick it through because they have a sense of camaraderie with other people who are doing the same thing. And these companies have created communication channels for those people to get in touch with one another. Even though they are, in a lot of ways, a distributed workforce or atomized in their own locations, isolated in their cars, again groups that do that, the community really has a huge impact on competitive advantage if you wanna put it in business terms. Millennials, I was actually reading today finally this report that Impact Assets put out, which you can download online. But on the millennial, 80 million millennials that don't think of themselves as millennials, just like micro entrepreneurs that I didn't really answer that part. Am I a millennial? I don't know, exactly. Who's a millennial? I don't know. Micro entrepreneurs, I'm just trying to get through life in one step at a time, but it's like 50% plus millennials when they do these big studies, and it's just like some stats, are totally believe that the individual can make a difference globally. That's a very different sort of stance than my generation as an exer, as an ex generation ex. 85% of millennials prioritize work that is enriching to themselves, but also enriching to the world. 70% think that business and purpose should coexist. This all speaks to, I mean, whether or not you believe these numbers and what does that really mean? Honestly, I don't really know, but there's a massive generational shift that is just statistically on the table. We can see it, wealth transfer, it's all gonna turn over in the next 30 years. And values is much more on the table. And community and affinity means more, to your point about the platforms, the things that really bring people together and exalt and sort of connect around meaning and purpose and community are going to do better. And so I think it's gotta be part of the solution too in terms of some of the technical aspects. So Lupin, you talked about there being definitely barriers for certain portions of the population and the idea that one key barrier to entry is the need to own an asset a lot of times with these peer-to-peer models. From your perspective in workforce development, are there sharing economy platforms where there's not the case and there really is opportunity for lower income communities? And I guess beyond that, is this something that workforce programs or strategies would ever come to a point where you're actively trying to get people into this space? Are there not enough benefits there yet? That's a great question and we don't have the answer yet. I think that there are platforms where you don't have to have the physical assets. So there's ELANCE, for example, where you are the asset, your skills. And I think what we're trying to figure out as the workforce development system is how we can, we know the world of work is changing. We know that people, that jobs are going away, we have technological unemployment, there are just fewer jobs being created and fewer middle-class jobs. And we don't want to have a system that just creates low-income jobs. Our goal is for people to be self-sufficient and to have the dignity of work. And so what it means, we're not quite sure what that means yet and we're trying with the gig, with what we're calling our gig union, is to get our sort of pinky toes wet with it, but we're not quite sure what the future looks like. I don't think any of us are really sure if it's going to be where people don't have nine to five jobs where they have, where they're cobbling things together, then it's going to be up to public entities to provide the infrastructure and the support mechanisms or it's going to be that someone's responsibility. If you look at tech now they're saying it's lifelong learning is going to be something that everyone's going to be needed. Who does that, the responsibility for providing the infrastructure for lifelong learning? Who does that fall on? Is it the public university system? Is it state system? Is it vocational schools? Or is it MOOCs? Who then answers to quality? Is it all going to be for profit? And one of my big questions with all of this is how people are actually going to be having the time to participate in all of this, because if you have, if you're on Elance for example, so much of your work is just around your reputation and the marketing, and this is something that is very new. I think business people always sold themselves, but now anyone who's going to be using these platforms a large part of the time and commitment is just marketing themselves and managing your reputation online so that then you can get the next job. And so people, if you want to work a 40 hour week approximately, maybe one through Sunday after that you pick the kids up or whenever, how are you going to manage this because the amount of time you're actually spending that will generate revenue is going to decrease as the amount of time you spend trying to get the gigs and manage your reputation and your profile and log into the different platforms. How do you actually cobble all this together? And we don't know. Yeah, interesting. Yeah, David, to that point, if I can, with Elance and ODesk and all of these, you know, it used to be if I was a union president I wanted some research done on an industry or a sector or a company. I would call up a staff researcher who was my full-time employee. I still do that, but that one could do that and have that person put together, crunch the numbers, look at data sets, produce a report. You know, now I could go online and bid for that work anywhere in the globe and sign an online non-disclosure agreement, ship some data off, have it crunched for me, come back to the reform of a report and maybe pay pennies on the dollar versus what I would pay for a full-time employee with to do the same work. So I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is there a strategy to reverse engineer the globalization of work and the proliferation of these sorts of work platforms to actually align towards better pay and benefits? I keep wondering why someone doesn't start a worker-owned temp firm, attract all the best workers because that's the only platform that's actually on their side and force wages and prices up instead of forcing them down, which is in effect what Amazon Turk and Odask and all these things do, is they globalize the work, increase the supply, wild demand holds steady and they're for the price drop. So I think that the question of what can some of the assets do in this economy is not yet solved because if you don't have some really great real estate that you can run out to with Airbnb but all you have is the willingness to work hard, you now find yourself being one of seven billion people competing for two billion good jobs and that center will not hold for very long. So I wanna take questions in a couple of minutes. So I think that there's a microphone somewhere that can make its way out into the audience and while that's happening, don't wanna put you on the spot but does anybody wanna ask another panelist a question? I'm actually kinda curious, Lupin, because I feel like we look at groups of people with similar needs, like one of the groups that I've been examining a lot is actually domestic workers, which the domestic workers have basically been around for all of US history and they're a really invisible movement and of course, you deal with a lot of domestic workers as well but it's a group of people who have tried to organize for decades and centuries and has really only very recently been seeing success. Actually, the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights just passed in Massachusetts. It's already been passed in California and Hawaii and New York but what I think is really interesting is that these are groups of people who are also atomized. They're a distributed workforce. They have traditionally been really hard to organize and that's why they haven't been successful in the past but to me, they have identified a lot of the needs and been able to articulate those needs that peer economy providers need as well. Things like what are you gonna do if you have a sick day? Are there things like sick banks that you can draw from? What are things around health insurance and retirement as well? So these are needs that cross all boundaries but I'm really curious because you are working with a population that has a very immediate need whereas we're talking about groups of people who they have enough of a runway to not have that be as immediate but I'm really curious about what you're dealing with on a day to day basis. What are the issues that you have to address with the populations that you work with? So we mainly, the workforce development system it's not just the workforce development division in San Francisco. There are a number of different organizations including education. So if you look at the broader system it's K through 12. It's the community colleges, it's the state university less so the university system instead of the state system. And then there are organizations like the Health and Human Services Agency and then organizations like us and then Office of Economic, sorry that's me, DCYF so working with children and there are lots of different entities working with us. And so what we do is the workforce development systems is we tend to take the folks who are considered work ready and so that's not the folks who are experiencing homelessness right now because if you are experiencing homelessness or if you're experiencing drug addiction chances are you're not gonna be able to go out and get a nine to five job tomorrow. You need to deal with these other issues first and that tends to be other systems. So we tend to work with people who are fairly stable. So they've got housing, they've got some sort of they're not in urgent need for food or the basic necessities of life. And then we work with them towards getting the skills they need to participate and what that looks like in San Francisco right now is we've got hospitality and what we're finding more is the entry into those jobs they tend to be kind of low pay. We also have healthcare which isn't going anywhere and some of those jobs are high paying but there's a very, very high entry to that and healthcare is actually a great model because it is so regularly the occupations are licensed and there are career trajectories within healthcare. We also have tech and the entry to tech is really high and we have training programs but generally what we're trying to do is get people who want to participate in the economy and have a certain level of skills and provide them with training to skill them up so that they can participate fully. What I think we're trying to figure out and what we're trying to help the department of labor figure out is what does that mean beyond does it still mean that our goal is to help people get nine to five jobs? We're trying with home healthcare providers they don't have nine to five jobs and that's okay because that's a personal service stuff that sort of is a category that's existed for a long time but more for the professional services what does that look like? And on the day to day we're not quite sure because I think anyone in this field is very uncomfortable with saying you know what go out and get a bunch of gigs. We just did a survey on our gig union participants and 107 of them have found employment and of that 107, four of them have found regular jobs so by regular meaning nine to five, salary, or hourly employment and the other 103 have gotten gigs, freelance gigs that are anywhere between most of them it's between $503,000 and that's not gonna get you very far and so trying to figure out how we can get people to self-sufficiency the people who aren't there the people who do need help and make sure that they stay that way. Cool. Okay so I think we have a microphone there so if folks have questions just raise your hand and looks like we have somebody all the way over here. No, well hang on one sec for the microphone. Terrific conversation I am but what strikes me is that we're kind of collapsing three really different kind of dimensions around the future of work. I mean there's this whole differentiation between people who are now able to monetize their capital even if it's on a small scale versus people who are able to sell their labor and I think we're really just trying to talk about the latter but even there it seems like the difference between what this means for skilled versus unskilled workers and for people in the developed world versus the developing world are really different and from what I'm hearing it feels like the only real winners today are the skilled workers in the developing world who suddenly have access to new markets and maybe some skilled workers in the developed world. But what I'm wondering is like what are the I don't hear anything about how this is really gonna I mean I hear that there's some pain around it but I wonder if we were to just focus on this problem of unskilled workers you know is the developing developed world is this gonna change that balance at all? I mean what do you see here? Oh I see. I mean I guess I could try to speak to that a little bit because and I'm not completely sure that I understand but I'm gonna try because you're talking mostly about developing developed worlds and people I often talk to are really excited to hear about the peer economy and they say to me oh my gosh can we apply this in Southeast Asia and I don't know I mean I don't know that you can or can't but one thing that we've heard a lot at this conference is that sharing isn't new but when we look at what the peer economy is which is people selling their abundance or just really maximizing whatever assets they have and if you took that out of the formal economy that would be called the informal economy and that exists everywhere in the developing world it's people who sell you know a seat like for example I used to live in the city which is in the middle of South Africa and there is an unregulated taxi system there that works amazingly and this is the thing where people said okay well I have this car I can sell the space and I'm gonna maximize it like crazy and then there are people who maybe have extra batteries right like lying around and these are places that don't have electricity in very rural areas and so they say hey for like you know T-Rand I will charge your phone for you and so I think that sometimes when you talk about like the developing develop world like what we forget is that this is at least from the peer economy level which is the only level I can speak to here is that it is also a cultural phenomenon right like we talk about maximizing our abundance and in a developing country where you already have peer-to-peer marketplaces they're not talking about maximizing their abundance they're talking about optimizing for efficiency and that's kind of a different conversation and so in terms of I guess like the developing developed world I think it's just again it's like this is a very specific thing that is happening and it's really I think getting a lot of traction in the U.S. and in Europe because it is a little bit out of step with how things have operated now how business has operated for the last like you know like since the industrial revolution basically. So let me take the skill unskilled part of this and instead of the developed undeveloped you know here's the here's one core problem is that we are overproducing low wage jobs that don't require education. So it may it may not feel that way every other than Seattle let's say everyone's super educated super smart and at high tech and it's rich but if you look at the U.S. for the fastest 20 growing job categories 17 of them require nothing more than a high school education and 15 of them don't pay more than $30,000 a year. By the end of the decade it's projected that 48% of all work will be low wage work defined as 200% of federal poverty line or under for your family size and so that is a scary future. It is not because of the gig economy it is just happens to be that the gig economy and the share economy is co-located with this moment of the fracturing of traditional employment that was itself co-located with a period of time that we had high wages, high benefits a set of labor both private and public sector labor market institutions that aligned towards shared prosperity. The question is not how to recreate last centuries institutions for shared prosperity it's what since policy is only frozen power and power only occurs in the aftermath of a massive disruption, it's how to form power. The question is what massive disruption needs to occur now in order to reset the power table and create new institutions that can in fact align the future of work with the future of prosperity. Well, and I think one thing to just be a little bit careful about is like setting up false comparisons because we're not talking about like, okay, here are the two choices it's either being a Lyft driver or you're a UAW employee working in a plant in Michigan, that's just not the case. I think when thinking about whether this is quote good or not, it's more equivalent to think about, okay, you're a Lyft driver or you're working at McDonald's you're working in a place where you don't have benefits that we're talking about organizing to get. So that's just another thing to make sure we're careful about when drawing comparisons. Manufacturing coming back to the US and it's all gonna be done by robots. I mean the reality is we've seen now 40 years of jobless economic growth in the US and 40 years of wage less economic growth now 14 years of jobless economic growth and so because of cheaper fuel, largely due to fracking and some other things we'll actually see manufacturing here but we will not see a rise in manufacturing employment. So you're absolutely right. It really, it's the Lyft driver versus the McDonald it's that, that's this economy. And the question is really not do we, is it good or bad? But if we have a different set of outcomes that we value, what do we do to change it? Any of us, yeah. Put us on a lighter note since that one was a little tough. Good question. If we switch gears a little bit here we are currently in a world where tech has enabled and many things have enabled people to do things and raise their standard of living in some form that we couldn't imagine maybe 15 years ago. So let's go to the future. It's a world where everything has become software. I can 3D print any device that I maybe would have needed to have manufactured in the world. I have a sharing economy that allows me to have these things. Does anybody or have you spent any time looking at the future of work in that scenario where perhaps work isn't the centerpiece of existence. It's actually maybe something that's just necessary to create functioning society but we have more flexibility to do things. I'm just trying to take us to the other extreme of what we just talked about. Well, so I think this is interesting because this is actually not new. Actually way that Keynes talked about this John Maynard Keynes who's this really famous economist. He talked about this and I mean sort of Marx, right? So did a lot of people on all sides of economics and they said, you know, one day we're gonna have such great technology that we're gonna just be able to spend all our time thinking about art and beauty and just like, you know, just incredibly profound thoughts and that hasn't happened. And they predicted this, you know, like for this last century and that did not happen. I don't know if that will happen anytime soon and I think that's probably why we're not talking about that kind of scenario on stage is because it would be amazing if that did happen. I think all of us want that because what it does is it creates a human centered situation. Regardless of how people feel about the peer economy, one thing that I think is really interesting is all of its advocates are really going, what they really care about is the idea of a human centered economy. But with, sorry, I just lost my train of thought. But yeah, so the reason that I think I would love for that to happen but I think sometimes it's more productive to talk about how to get there and that's really one of the things that I'm curious about. I mean, we're a collection of people who think a lot about this area and some of this has varying levels of practice and we have all these grand visions but one of the things that I really care about is how do we actually take the next step to get there. You can have these grand visions but they're not gonna come true unless you actually create action plans and infrastructures and all of that and that is an open question like I haven't landed anywhere either and it's actually why I've been excited about this panel is you have a lot of people with different perspectives. Cool. Not as soon, sorry. I would say it hasn't happened yet. It could happen. When I was talking earlier about Moore's Law, I think that the future of work community is in some ways divided between adherence to the sort of a permanentized Moore's Law that eventually ends work as we know it and those who think it has its own cycle to go through in which case we'll see tighter labor markets and a shortage of workers and so there's actually very different among futurists and economists people who think a lot about this there are very different views of whether that reality is in fact possible. It's a fantastic vision. It's not entirely up to us but I would say the key question about if we did see the continued acceleration of technologies that allowed for that you would then have to have a very different conversation a very different political conversation about how we allocate resources and how do we create a world in which studying art I mean it's hard to study art and poetry when you're starving and so the question of in a world without work how do we create broadly shared prosperity becomes a critical political question. Hi, so I would actually disagree with what you guys just said about that we haven't experienced some growth in art and giving this more relaxed atmosphere to our society I mean 100 years ago where we not walk working all the time in order to just survive and now my wife can take a letter press class at 8 p.m. after she does her freelance editing gig I mean I would say that's a vast improvement over where we used to be. That's not what I actually want to say. What I want to ask is how do you who do you, which organizations, which genres of groups, do you each from your different perspectives see as taking this forward? Is this everyone working together? Is this VCs? Is this entrepreneurs? Is this peers? Is who is this that you see kind of innovating in this area in your vision? I mean I'll respond really quickly. I don't think it's something that can be top down curated or controlled. I mean I think that there can be curators who bring together conversations and do field building as peers does for example as this conference is doing et cetera. It's definitely a pluralist kind of messy thing and in VCs are not, I'm sure there's some out there. It was kind of a challenge. Yeah exactly I mean are really not gonna to drive stuff but I think that it's a combination of real rapid prototyping potential. A lot of different platforms interacting and exchanging of getting a lot better at being able to move those sorts of value that are gonna drive this and I think it's gonna happen. It's happening naturally and it's quickening. And actually that's the good news. I have a lot of hope and certainty at my kind of intuitive core. I'm not a big academician, I can't even say it about this kind of stuff. I'm a practitioner in the trenches trying to move some money around and kind of we're following some business models and trying to figure out how to fail forward quickly towards some of this cool new stuff. And I see a lot of other really great practitioners better than me for sure. Doing a lot of the same stuff. So I think that it's gonna be a messy crazy roller coaster and it's going fast. Yeah and I'd say so Pierce is very interested in this. We're an organization that's built to serve the sharing economy. There are some very immediate and pressing legislative needs right now that are taking up a lot of the capacity of the organization. But that said, look it's something we hear about from members, individuals every day are these needs. And as a mission-based organization we're going to respond to that and gonna continue to build and work on that. But I totally agree it's not just gonna be one entity. It might be Pierce that launches sharing economy guilds, for example. But it's gonna be Denise writing a policy paper to get the workforce development agency to build a pipeline. And somebody to launch a new insurance startup out of the hub and collaborate with, I can't figure out how to pull David in, but you know. I can do that. Yeah I think it's gonna have to be a collaborative effort but the exciting piece is that they're, with this uncertainty I think a lot of us see opportunity. So in terms of specific organizations there are a few bright spots out there. I think that there is largely a vacuum in this space. The fact that Pierce is doing this and interested in it is incredibly encouraging. I agree with Tim. Movements are not, they don't have a central address. If you wanted to write a letter to the civil rights movement in 1965 there was no CEO and there was no post office box you could send it to. It was a proliferation of activity, networked and aligned but not directly coordinated and certainly not controlled. And so I think the same is true of figuring out this space. But it's interesting, I mean the Ford Foundation funds a lot of work around worker centers and around advocacy for work in the new economy. The Soros Foundation's OSF and OSI are beginning to do a very serious project on the future of work. The Rosalind Institute is doing a really serious project on the future of work and to figure out how to loop me in. Sam I would say. Here we go. And Tim as well, this idea of rapid prototyping could very easily be applied to new models of worker organization that attempt to replicate the economic power around price, the scale and the organizational resilience that in a different era labor unions had but instead facing a different structure of work in a different type of worker. And you know the freelancers unions doing a lot of this stuff as well just to name it. And also to add to that, I mean something that I think we forget is that the union movement actually took a long time before it got its first successes. There's a very long history of failure in the union movement but every single one of those failures is what eventually got like fair labor acts in OSHA and all of you, OSHA sorry is health and safety standards for workers. And so these are all really important things to remember is that it's not gonna necessarily be a straight up when in one moment it actually potentially is gonna take a while. And for me, this is why I'm always like, oh, people in the peer economy should be working with domestic workers because there's a lot of synergy that can happen. This is a group that is traditionally immigrants, they are pretty invisible but they have the framework and then there's the peer economy providers who don't have the framework but they have the visibility and we can combine those things together like how much more can you push things forward for everybody but also finally to add one last thing, I actually think that one of the most important stars in this whole thing, so actually see this whole area as a distributed network of media people, of labor advocates, of investors and companies but I actually think cities are gonna be the ones that have the biggest role in pushing things forward. What we see through a lot of these sort of sharing economy models is basically an alternative infrastructure that people are relying on because they're not finding that reliability through national services, federal services and sometimes local services but cities operate on a very different level than a federal government does. In fact, cities actually have a lot more agency to make immediate decisions because they are on the ground floor if it snows and there's nobody to salt the streets, if it snows you can't wait for the city hall to legislate and to debate whether they should be using salt or gravel or dumping stuff into, dumping snow into the ocean, like something just has to happen right then and there but that's why I think that cities are actually gonna be a really important part of this is because they have the ability to act directly. I mean it kind of comes back to what you were talking about with proximity. So we probably have time for one more question. All the way in the back. Where do you guys see universal basic income or minimum guaranteed income in all of this? Great question. I think it's a very promising idea and it's potentially very, very important. Do you wanna take a step back and explain what that means? Sure, universal basic income or guaranteed income is essentially the idea that everyone gets an income. It has its origins in really libertarian and in some ways conservative economic thought but it is at this point in time is a place with progressives and conservatives actually can find some unity around this idea that in a world where there's long periods of unemployment followed by short periods of employment and where there is the gig economy and a different structure of work that attacks a redistributive mechanism of taxation into income rather than taxation into government services and safety nets is actually a more efficient way of supporting people who may end up with long periods of time without the ability to earn a lot of income and that by then making them economic agents and participants in the economy rather than recipients of a welfare state style top-down program that you're giving them the ability because customers and therefore job creators as well. And I think that we are an interesting moment when someone like Andy Stern and Andrew McAfee and folks in the Hoover Institution are all talking about this. I think that it's something we shall keep our eye on. Cool, we can do one more actually. Yeah, Rafael. Rafael, you wanna introduce where you're from as well? Hi, I'm Rafael from Madrid, Spain. I just came specifically to learn from you. Do you think that in the future, instead of working for a company, can we work for a community? Some of the components of the basic wage, so everyone gets a salary and some people who believe that that is a potential reality, I'm a bit more skeptical, significantly more skeptical about that. But if you believe that that is a possibility then the idea is that you could then have people contributing to communities and then there's not necessarily salary being exchanged but you contribute by either cleaning the street or serving dinner or doing something because your time isn't equated to income because you've already got that taken care of. I mean, with money, with the money. With money, looking for the community. How are you gonna find that? With money, that with money? Let someone else take that one. I mean, yeah, it seems to me that it's like, going back to small towns and any kind of, and again, it backs this ecosystem idea. I mean, once you have sort of a concrete set of interactions and values that need to get kind of moved around, I mean, we made all this stuff up. I think we all have to forget. I mean, money is this notional thing, this counter system that we, barter currencies, which are going on now and I think sort of you're alluding to alternative currencies and barter currencies. I mean, the difference between those and hard currencies or Bitcoin, I mean, it's like this stuff is all just a bunch of kind of constructs. It's evolving at kind of a really rapid clip and I think that they're, I mean, we're playing around with this right now in the hub network is beginning to prototype in different regions, just the very beginnings of an actual internal currency that can be exchanged that we can actually move around the system and convert in and out to potentially into some kind of a central bank cash thing. I mean, this is really the Bitcoin thing. So I think that you can take that basic intuitive, like, yeah, if you believe it, you can do it and get it to cash reasonably well. Cool. Well, I think that's a, we've thoroughly deconstructed this conversation and it's a good place to end. So I'd just like to take a second and have everybody give a hand to our panelists and thank them for an excellent discussion. And yeah, thank you as well. So that concludes the panel.