 Thanks to Becca Ballant, the Majority Leader in the Senate, come on up. And Jim Harrison, who's in the house now and has a long time had of the Vermont Grocery and Retailers Association. So very pleased that both of you could be with us today. And we are going to be passing the mic back and forth because otherwise it can be hard to hear. We tried projecting without the mic and that didn't work so well. So and we have a number of questions from readers. And I have to say, readers ask the best questions. I mean, they're amazing questions. So I think we can get quite deep on the nuances of this topic in the short period of time we have in front of us. I don't know if you each want to say something super brief about your general stance on minimum wage and then we can dive right into questions if you like. Jim? Sure. Thank you, Ann. And thank you, folks, for coming out early this morning. Pleased to be here. As Ann mentioned, I'm Jim Harrison. I do have a past. Please don't hold that against me. I do try in my new role in life that now my third year, second session of being a legislator, I do try to look at things with a very open mind. I recognize my role here is to represent the constituents of my four towns, which are Bridgewater, Killington, Menden, and my hometown of Chittenden. So I'm very pleased to be here. And I look forward to the conversation. In terms of preconceived notions, I'm here to learn what Senator Ballant has to say. And we'll take it from there. But I don't always come at it from a government knows best perspective. But on the other hand, I try to be very pragmatic. Good morning. It's always fun to share the stage with Jim because he and I have a nice relationship. We spent many years together talking about issues in the Economic Development Committee in the Senate side when you had come in to testify. He was like the treats that I brought. He did. He brought great donuts. It's true. So along with, I believe at this point, 15 other senators. I am a co-sponsor of the minimum wage bill. So that gives you some idea of where I stand on this issue. Someone who worked multiple minimum wage jobs throughout my adulthood. And it's someone who comes from a family that has worked restaurant jobs and tipped wage jobs. For many years, I have a particular lens. And like Jim, I like to talk about the nuance of the conversation. So I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from the questions this morning. So happy for the invitation. Great. Thank you both. So the questions are really from a range of points of view. And some people would appear from their questions to be very anxious about the implications of an increase in the minimum wage. And other people wonder why it's taken the legislature so long to get there. So in that spirit, I have a general question at the beginning. Many employers are already paying well above minimum wage in order to attract workers. Is a minimum wage rate really necessary? Who is really paying minimum wage at this time? And so that's my overarching question. And we'll dive into reader questions. Jen? Well, first of all, as we are all well aware, we have a shortage in our workforce. There are, if I heard anything from both small and large businesses this past year is we cannot find enough good employees. The positive side of that is the marketplace reacts to it. And wages are going up. And I think that's all good. We just have to be careful when we mandate those increases too high in what happens to all wages, which therefore puts a lot of squeeze on the business owner and prices that they need to charge to stay in business. So there is definitely a shortage. And I think, as I've said, the positive thing on that is the marketplace is increasing wages right now. That's good. So I don't disagree with Jim that we have a worker shortage. It's something that really was the issue, one of the two issues that compelled me to run for the legislature to begin with, which was looking at the crisis of workforce in my county, Wyndham County, and also looking at the growing rates of poverty. We don't disagree on that. We have a workforce crisis. What we do disagree on is, are we paying people currently what they're worth in the marketplace? And so when you look at who's benefited for the last 10 to 20 years, so since 1979, wages have been flat for those at the lower wage earners and middle wage earners, completely flat. 99% of Vermont workers have not seen a significant wage and their wages since 1979. So although I understand that this is going to be a challenge for many businesses, we know that 90% of our businesses here in Vermont employee workers have 20 workers or fewer in their places of employment, but a third of the workforce works for those employees. So you've got 2 thirds of employees working for businesses that are larger than that. And we need to be thinking about, what are the workers worth? Productivity has risen dramatically in the last 20 years, but we have not seen increases in wages. And if you are making minimum wage in Vermont, you're still making a poverty wage. So what class of company actually pays minimum wage at this point? I mean, is it just Walmart or are there other companies in Vermont that a majority of which are paying minimum wage? Is it farm workers? Do we know anything about the sectors that are actually paying minimum wage at this point? That's a good question. And looking at the Department of Labor website and all the data that they have on there, there is a number of industries that probably have higher number of low paying jobs, certainly retail. And a lot of that's because it's a lot of part time employees when your seven days a week open long hours. You have a lot of part time, and you have a lot of ebbs and flows in the business. Hospitality industry, which are often gratuity based in addition to wages. So the wage itself might be low, but gratuities hopefully bring that up to a more respectable number. So there are a lot of service sector jobs, but it's not just that. Sometimes we don't look at is I went last week to a meeting on early daycare, early childhood education and whatnot. I was surprised to learn that one daycare center of the average wage or the starting wage maybe was like 12, 35, 12, 50, which really doesn't sound very high for the type of people you're trying to attract there. And they would love to pay 15. However, they also indicated that it was going to mean that they're I'm going to get the numbers wrong. I do the latter one. I do have right that the cost, the price they need to charge the parents was going to go up from say 250 a week to 400 a week. And could they afford that? That's something we all have to do. And the answer isn't always, well, the government will just pay more because the government can only get money from the taxpayers. So we have to be very careful in terms of the balance of what that means. But it does cross many sectors. So and there's but it also is a lot of part time that are supplementing incomes. So I think what's interesting is you could look at the jobs that people are in or you could look at who are these workers in general. Who are these part time workers? And that tells you a lot about who would be directly impacted by a change in the minimum wage. Before I get to that, though, I want to make sure people understand this increase in the wage is it includes what the pay increase was going to be in previous legislation that was passed. So if we stay on the path that we're on, we're still going to have a minimum wage increase. And that's been lost in the discussion in the state house. So if we do nothing, there is still going to be an increase. The difference will be by 2024, we'll be at $12.04 an hour by 2024. And with the new bill, if it passes and gets signed into law, we will be at $15 by 2024. So it's a pretty slow incremental climb. But who are these workers? So 56% of these workers are women. Many of them are the heads of their households. I know we often say that these are teen workers, but 90% of the people will be impacted by this are 20 or older. So most of them are not teen workers. Many of them are not part time. And Jim talked a little bit about the tipped wage. Women are the majority of both the minimum wage and the tipped-waged workers. And I don't think we'll probably have time to even delve into the tipped-waged part. But right now, tipped-wage in Vermont is only half of what the regular minimum wage is. And so that is going to be an issue that we also are going to be investigating. I don't know if we'll make any legislative recommendations on the tipped-wage. But we know that when women are overwhelmingly in any line of work, they tend to be less paid than the men. And so we see this with the tipped-wage as well. Women are the overwhelming members of the tipped-wage class and they are also experiencing much higher rates of sexual harassment on the job than in other lines of work. Part of that we believe is because they rely on their tips to supplement their income. And so they are dependent on those tips and put up with more at work because they feel they need to in order to bring home the pay. So it's just another nuance I wanted to bring into the discussion that we really haven't given a lot of attention to in the state house yet. Thank you very much. John Grovner is here. I don't know if you want to ask your question, but that's the first question on my list. So did you want to pose it? More from a historical perspective that if we did nothing, we chose minimum wage when it was 20 years ago and we took an indexing method to what it should be today. What would it be? Was one question I had. The kid remembers the other one, to be honest with you, at the end, but while I had the floor, I was talking to a coworker as well who's raised another question and she's a part-time woman and she's a part-time employee that does cops together. You know, very typical of a bunch of cops together, there are multiple jobs to make ends meet and she works at Kinney Drugs and there was this kind of fear aspect when I talked to her about the raising of it and I was quite taken aback by it in that Kinney is already positioning themselves their finance people are crunching numbers and writing algorithms and whatnot as to how to adjust the schedules that work and my impact in the lives of these people. I was really quite surprised and taken aback by that and I just wanted to throw that out as to is this really going to happen? How does this impact? Reminders me of, you know, my position is, you know, I heard a great quote in life, do you do good or do you do well? And it's like doing moral thing or the financial thing. I think that's... Great, well thank you, John. I think if there was a question in there and it was where would we be now if minimum wage had been indexed from the beginning and I don't know the answer to that question, do you guys know? I'll take a quick stab at it but it will be in broad brush. You can always pick numbers in the, I mean minimum wage dates back a long, long time and you can pick the, when it started to where it was now and maybe we're ahead of that or even whether you can also pick a time in between or let's just say, you know, 1975 and then go forward and maybe it's less than what it would have been there just with CPI. I would say, first of all, a couple of things, Vermont has currently six highest, I think minimum wage in the country. We can't lose sight of that because we're not necessarily operating in a bubble. Additionally, if you look at 2014 to 2017, when 2014 was the last time that the legislature actually set in a schedule as opposed to CPI and that wage, I think went up like 14.5% in those three years. Wages in Vermont over those same three years, median wages only increased six and a half percent. So just increasing beyond what inflation would have been does not necessarily mean that wages overall wages increase at the same rate. So it's something we just have to be cognizant of. We need to look at all the impacts. We don't have a magic wand in my pillar where we can just say everything's gonna be good. Everybody's gonna be fat and happy because there are a number of factors in the marketplace. So to your first question, my understanding is if it had increased peg two inflation rate of growth that we would be at a $20 an hour minimum wage in order to have the same buying power that someone had in 1973, I think it is. And so right now, if you look back at where it was adjusted for inflation in the early 70s, it was about just over $10 in terms of buying power. And right now we're just over $10, but we don't have the same buying power. So some of this is, as Jim said, it's hard to peg down the numbers, but we know it has not grown to the extent to which we are where we were in the 1970s. Another way to measure that is minimum wage today is much farther away from middle class wages. So looking at 1968, so I looked at the year I was born, so I turned 50 this year. And so I was thinking, where was it in the year I was born? So minimum wage jobs and the proceeds from that made up 50% of the share of the national wages for full-time, full-year median wage. Today it's only about a third, right? So if you just look at what people were making, contributing to national wage, it made up about 50% and now it's only a third. Your second question was, what's the impact for workers on the ground, right? And of course, this is what I care about in when I'm out talking to constituents. When I have people email me and call me and say, I can't make it work, I can't make the numbers work, but I'm also concerned, am I gonna lose hours at my job? Is my job gonna be eliminated? There are a lot, so one thing that you should know is this is the most studied economic issue ever. And so we have a lot of data. Some of it's conflicting, but most of it generally, you can pull out themes and threads. And one is, although there might be loss of some jobs, often they're part-time jobs and people pick up those hours at another job. And what we find is when you look at studies of this, because like I said, it's the most studied, if you look at places that have increased minimum wage, if people lose hours at a particular job, they tend to pick it up at another job and they make up for it over the course of the year and they end up the year ahead. So does this make it easy for employers? Absolutely not. I'm not saying that this is easy. It's going to take adjustment. It's going to take hard work and sacrifice. I understand that, but my lens, I get sent here to Montpelier to do work by my constituents who are struggling to make ends meet. And so when I look at the data, when I delve into it, I think on the whole, it makes more sense to move to this than to not. Sorry, I just happened to be on the way with the microphone. And sometimes I need to. As I said before, we have to look at ramifications, we have to be cognizant of it. And maybe I am super sensitive to it because of my past life. Country stores are near and dear to me. We're losing them for a variety of reasons. One of which is increased costs that the state puts on them. We talk about conflicting studies. We don't have a lot of data on the new world of $15 sound bites for minimum wage. Seattle is probably the closest. And the study by the University of Washington indicated that in the first nine months, when they went to $13, there was a reduction of 9.4% in hours at the lower end. So we just, we have to be cognizant of that. And Seattle is a much more urban world with a lot more economic activity going on than probably our entire state. So we just need to beware of implications. And I would get back to, I mean, even our joint fiscal office and our economist, Tom Kovett, when he looked at the request of the legislature, he talked about a reduction in jobs at 15, even on the phase in schedule was going to be 22, 2,800 positions statewide. So again, there's a fine balancing act. And I said before, I can be pragmatic and work with anyone for an outcome, but I don't wanna just vote for something because it seems like a politically popular thing to do and do more harm than good at the end of the day. I can ask some questions now. So I think, Vermonters are really pragmatic and a lot of the questions we have are all about the law of unintended consequences. So let's just dive right in. Mike Rogers from Colchester says, school districts outside of teachers employ a variety of workers who may not make that $15 minimum wage. Accelerating this movement, will the legislature recognize the additional pressure it will place on school budgets and the increases that will occur on property taxes and be understanding of that domino effect. So I hand that one to you, Becca. So before his past life, retail grocer, my past life working in schools. And so certainly as a former teacher, as a parent now of two kids in the public schools in Browlerboro, I certainly understand you pull one thread, you're gonna feel it in another place. I understand that. I think what's hard about this issue is we in state government or local government often feel the need to push the envelope to tell other people what to do, right? That we should be more virtuous, that we should increase wages and we ourselves are not willing to do that on the ground where it is in schools and school budgets in state government. I understand this is gonna impact state government workers as well. And so will we be sensitive? I can't speak to my colleagues. I certainly understand what it is to try to pass a local school budget and to take care of the people on the ground taking care of our kids. But what kind of state do we wanna have? What kind of community do we wanna have? Do we want people working in our schools who are making a poverty wage? That is my question. Do you want paraprofessionals who do a lot of the frontline work with kids not making a livable wage? I don't. So is it going to make for some very difficult decisions at the local level? Absolutely. And I wanna just say, because I know I couldn't take the microphone back before, in terms of job loss, just wanna say a lot of the job loss is not full-time equivalence. It's part-time work. And I think that's important to keep in mind. So to your question, Ann, are we aware that it's going to have the impacts beyond the market sector? Is it going to impact our schools and our workers there? Absolutely. But I feel strongly that this is work that needs to be done. It's not my question. Oh, okay. It's my readers' question. Your readers' question. Thank you for the clarification. Mike from Colchester. Yes. Yeah. None of the rest to this point. So Mike Rogers wanted to know what the impact basically is gonna be for school districts who need to pay $15 an hour who might be paying paraprofessionals or cafeteria workers or school bus drivers or custodians, less than $15 an hour. And another person here, while we're on this topic because it's in the same vein, Teresa Wood from Waterbury wants to know what impact this could have. And I'm trying to find her exact question here. She wanted to know what the potential impact might be on things like, on groups like mental health workers. In this case, what would the impact on services for people with disabilities and older Vermonters be? So are there school budget implications for local property tax payers and then implications for the state increasing wages or the designated agencies in some cases? You know, have we run the numbers? Do we know what the cost would be if we did this? I don't have the pleasure of serving on the Appropriations Committee when we look at all the various state budgets, but our own Rutland County Visiting Nurse Association talked to the Rutland County legislators, this passball and they indicated, you know, they're heavily dependent on state funding through Medicaid, heavily dependent. And as much as they would also like to just increase wages to the 15 and beyond, the budget implication was $300,000 a year. And the message to us was, if you wanna do that and you think that's the best public policy, we need another $300,000 in appropriation. So you have to look at that, not only Rutland, but other counties and what's the escalating effect? And that's just one segment. It, the mental health agency had a similar message. I don't believe they gave us a hard and fast number, but there are escalating, and sometimes it's not just bringing, you know, the unskilled entry level position to 15 that is an impact. It's bringing everybody else up that was making 15 or 16 that's experienced and trained. They need to go up, otherwise you have, you know, just a, you know, no incentive to, for them to stay and earn the same as elsewhere. So it's very difficult. There is budgetary implications. There's budgetary implications in the current environment as there's a workforce, but we just have to be very, very careful and tread like. Thank you. On the flip side, Ken Kaddish from Colchester wants to know, what do you predict the amount of increased state income tax revenue will be generated by $15 minimum wage compared to today's income tax budget projection? And will this increased tax income be dedicated for any specific uses? So I think these questions are really pointing up that this is a much more complex issue than the rhetoric that we hear from both sides. So what would the state income tax revenue implications be? Becca, do you know? I didn't bring those figures. Jim, do you have those on you? I can certainly get them to post later to your website because we do have the analysis from joint fiscal. I just had to choose from my packet. And one thing if I could, because I thought Jim brought up an excellent point of the home health aides and the LNAs. And one other piece that we heard in testimony last week was that in addition to the lower wages, they pay that they would, they all say we would like to be able to pay more. These are really hard jobs. They have a 40%, 40% turnover rate. And we discussed in committee, what would it look like for you to pay more, have less of a turnover rate and not have to do all of the training that you have to do, all the costs associated with the retraining of people when you have a turnover rate that high. So there's a lot that we don't know, but certainly we are taking testimony on both sides of the building and both the House and Senate on these issues. This is not, sometimes the way it's portrayed in the news is that it's a slam dunk because we did it, we passed it last year and we're still going back again to get the updated numbers to see what it looks like today because those numbers are now two years old. So I just wanna reassure people that we're doing that. Just on the tax issue, a number of folks would also argue and perhaps successfully that we all wanna help those on the low end and try to do what we can. And it may be from a government standpoint earned income tax credit is much more targeted. It's not targeted at the part-time high school student supplementing their allowance or college savings or what have you. It's targeting the people who are trying to raise families and need help. So it's something we should consider and look at from what's been good in this area but we could do more. Thank you, we have a specific question from Jean Rindel from Manchester Center. She wants to know, will high school students also get $15 an hour? As people aware of economic factors know, a high minimum wage will cause inflation. How will inflation affect people in fixed incomes and low income people? Will the middle class be able to afford food if milk and bread starts costing $8 and $9 a gallon? So we've got two sets of questions there. One is specifically, will high school students get $15 an hour followed by, what would the ripple effect be for consumers? So, Becca, you wanna start? So the bill is still in committee and it's still being worked on but this is an issue that we took up last time. We'll take up again. As it currently is, high school workers would not be paid at the same rate as other workers under this bill. And that is, we haven't landed yet but that is certainly part of the complexity of the issue related to the employment scene among our retailers in Vermont and who are those workers. So that's the first piece. What was the? The second piece was- Oh, prices, prices. Yeah, that's the potential inflation. Right, and so again, when you look at the data, which I'm a geek, I'm a history major, I love the footnotes, delved into the studies again this weekend and really what seems to be sort of the consensus of what increase in costs of goods that we'll see, it's basically 0.3% to 1.5%. And I'm not saying that's insignificant, it's not. If you're on a fixed income, any increase can be significant but it's not, we're not looking at $8 for a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread, as she said. Based on past experience and studies. So in terms of the student's current Vermont law, exempts high school students from the minimum wage. They have to pay the federal, which is $7.25. What's interesting to note though in the marketplace, high school students are today are typically paid minimum wage of Vermont's minimum wage or higher. And quite frankly, it's the marketplace. If you're looking for, listen, I started out, I'll date myself, I'm not as young as the senator here. But when I started out, minimum wage was like 160 or 165. You're definitely 165. I am, I'm sorry, full disclosure. And I was thrilled to death. One of the jobs I took paid 174 to start. I thought it was back in groceries, as you might expect. And I was pretty darn good at it. And maybe after a few months, I got a raise to 180. And I was really pleased. I thought I was something that, so it's difficult. So whatever the bar we set, unfortunately for those that perhaps don't need that kind of wage, we're, they're probably gonna go along with it because of the marketplace. It just like I said before of the inflation on the other end, what's very interesting to me is it gets back to the economic activity in an area. New Hampshire is one of those states that have not changed from the federal. Their minimum wage is 725 today. We're at, what are we, 1078 right now that goes up with inflation. Their median wage is higher than Vermont. So again, it's the economic activity. There's a lot of more perhaps opportunity, especially in Southern New Hampshire. But even in areas like the Upper River Valley, there's a lot going on in New Hampshire side. So the minimum wage, it may not have the impact that we think it does. And in fact, you could argue that perhaps Vermont with the sixth highest minimum wage in the country today has the 21st highest medium wage. So it's not a silver bullet in magic answer. Thank you. Cecil Foster from Bristol wants to know about the Seattle reports. There have been mixed findings of the results of the raising of the minimum wage in Seattle. Which report do you accept and why have you chosen to accept that particular report? Jim, we'll start with you. Well, as I mentioned before, and I haven't studied this like the committees of jurisdiction have and I'm sure they've heard those conflicting reports. The University of Washington did probably the first study on Seattle. And again, Seattle may be important in that it was the first one to go up. And it was a quicker. Right, and they were at 13, I think, at least a year ago. So that's important in that regard. But it's also important that it's so different than what we are in Vermont. So the University of Washington indicated that 9.4% reduction in positions or hours, I guess maybe for the low skilled entry level positions. I don't know since then if that's changed. But we also need to remind ourselves there are a lot of variables in terms of economic activity. I don't want to get off track, but sometimes I look and presidents, both parties pat themselves on the back when the economy was doing good, that they somehow had something to do with it. And they get the blame. They get the blame when the economy's not doing well. And I would suggest that both claims are overrated because the economy is moving independently for a variety of reasons. So it's a great question. The Seattle study is one that confounds a lot of people because you can find very strong arguments on either side of the debate, looking at the results of that same situation in Seattle. So what I've chose to do is to put aside Seattle because it isn't a strong indicator either way. So what I like to do is look at more meta-analyses. So let's look at studies of studies and what do we find when we aggregate? So two that I like to look at, Stanley and D'Culiacus was a 2009 study. So it was a meta-analysis of studies of minimum wage and it looked at many, many areas that had minimum wage increases and they looked at does it have a depressing effect in those areas on employment? And the meta-analysis shows that in fact, with a couple outliers at either end of the graph, most of them are right dead in the middle, meaning it did not have a negative impact. So looking at the aggregate. The other one that did a similar thing was a 2010 study of 300 contiguous counties across the country. So counties that increased minimum wage that were bordered by a county that did not increase minimum wage. And it was a similar finding. Of these 3,000 border study analyses, what they found was again, no significant depression of either wages or employment in those areas. Now again, we're gonna keep looking. We're gonna keep delving into the data to see, what are the threads that we can pull out? And as Jim said, there are many factors involved in employment in wages and it's the minimum wage is one part of it. But I feel secure when I look at the meta-analysis of what has happened. I feel like the thinking over time has changed about the impact that minimum wage has on local economies. Thank you. So we're almost out of time. I want to respect everyone's time here, including our guests. So it's 8.53, I think we have time for one more. Is that all right? Okay. So this is from Dave Wagner of South Burlington. And this picks up on something John Grovner was saying earlier about his friend who works at Kinney Drugs. How will you keep employers from cutting hours, workers work at the $15 hourly wage who formerly were working 40 hours at the $10 hourly wage? A related question that was in the list here has to do with the impact on benefits that certain people might not qualify for if they were paid more. So Jim, we'll start with you and finish with Becca. And this will be our last question. Do I get to intercept the mic coming back for the last word? A good question, a short answer is we don't know how the impacts would be. I think we have to be cognizant of that. We have to be careful. There can be a reduction in hours. At the end of the day, if business doesn't do anybody any good, not themselves, not their employees, if they're out of business. So they need to try to do what they can to balance prices, balance the needs of their employees, make sure they're attracting good employees, and sometimes that means paying a premium and that's the marketplace. So they have to be very cognizant of it. But what employers are also very nervous about is we, meaning legislators, across the way here, think sometimes we know the answer and we don't always know the right answer. And now let me just give you a quick example of that. This year, our legislative leaders have already announced plans for a new mandated family leave program. Well-intentioned, valuable benefit, but it's a nearly 1% payroll tax funded by the employer and the employee. So you take that by itself. We do sometimes work on things in a silo and it says that's a great benefit. I know it's a cost, but the benefits may outweigh the cost from many's perspective. But then on top of that, we say, well, that's not enough. So we need to go to a $15 minimum wage. We have to be very cognizant of the impacts. So we wanna all want people to earn more. We want opportunities for all of our citizens. We just have to be careful of how we do it and we don't always know best. So one thing I think we all need to keep in mind is we have a citizen legislature. We are not professionals. I have no staff. Even as majority leader, I have no staff. I am one person of a body of 30 and a larger body of 180. And I bring that up because I go home every weekend to my little neighborhood in Browleboro and I'm out in my yard, stacking my wood, trimming my lawn and people in my neighborhood know where I am and they come and talk to me about what's important to them. And so we are not professionals. So do we often make some mistakes along the way? Do we not always get it right? Absolutely, because we are you and you are us. So I wanna remind folks of that. That said, what do I hear overwhelmingly from my constituents? I need to earn more money. I cannot make it work. I'm working as hard as I can. I can't support my children. And to the benefits issue, which is such a great question, which is our employer's gonna have to trim on benefits in order to pay for a wage increase. That's gonna be for those employers to decide. I'm not gonna say what's right for a business. I do know that when I talk to my constituents, overwhelmingly they want more take home pay. They wanna decide how that money is spent. Will that be true across the board? I'm sure not. I'm sure there are gonna be some instances when they feel like they're losing a benefit that they enjoyed. But I have to kind of distill the information that I get from my constituents. And what I'm hearing is I need to make more money. Thanks, Ann. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. This is a really complex issue that'll be playing out for the months to come. And we'll be, we're already talking about doing a major data analysis because I think the answers are really unclear and the data is mixed. And so I think the more data sets we can get out there for people to evaluate the easier to be able to see what's most beneficial for everyone, which is a hard thing, right? That's the thing we struggle with as a democracy figuring out what's a benefit to the public on the whole. So thank you all for coming.