 Welcome. Good morning here from Geneva. Good evening or good afternoon, wherever you are in the world. Thank you for joining us online for this briefing session. We have kicked off yesterday the jobs research summit was the day one about economic growth, revival and transformation. Today we're going to start later today the second day about work wages and job creation and we have just launched the new edition of our future of jobs report. So we're going to discuss here the key findings about this report. And for that, I'm joined here by Sadia Sahidi, who is managing director of the world at the World Economic Forum and overlooking also the this report. We have Karen Kimbrough, who's the chief economist from LinkedIn, and we have Emily Glasberg Sands, who's the head of data science at Coursera. And last but not least, we have Hamun Ektari, he's the chief executive officer of future fit AI. So welcome to our panel. Thanks for being with us today. We are going to start with remarks from your side to explain a little bit the key findings. And after that, we're going to jump into Q&A and for the people joining us online. You can ask your questions directly in the chat and we will read them out and try to answer them. So let's start with Sadia. Sadia, can you explain us a little bit, you know, what are the key findings and what is special? Obviously, especially in this context of COVID-19 and what are the outcomes from this report? Thank you. Thank you, Jan. Let me immediately not answer your question. By first, simply thanking the people that have worked to produce this report. So thank you to all of the data partners that are joining us, of course, in this session today. So thanks to all of you, to LinkedIn, Coursera, to Future Fit AI, and also ADP. But let me also thank the people that produced this report. So in particular, Veselina Racheva for her leadership of the entire project, and Guillaume Hingle and Sophie Brown for their very important contributions. It's really been a sort of team effort and I think you'll see from the richness of the report, there is a lot in there to be learned about the future of jobs. Let me try to offer a first response, Jan, to your question, which is that we are starting to see a double disruption scenario become the reality for most workers today. So on the one hand, there has been this long term ongoing trend of automation and digitization that is starting to display certain tasks, which is then starting to display certain jobs. That trend is speeding up. And in addition, there is of course the pandemic induced recession that is contracting certain parts of the economy and making it much harder for workers to be able to move into their future roles. Now that said, we are still overall cautiously optimistic. And that is because the rate of, while the rate of job destruction is increasing and the rate of job creation is decreasing, net when we look out to 2025, the outlook is still positive. We still expect slightly more jobs to be created than destroyed. And at the same time, if we put in place proactive efforts today to reskill, upscale and help transition workers from job A to job B, I think we can get there, but it is going to require those proactive efforts. I'll stop there and back over to you, Jan. Thank you, Sadya. Karen, from your side, what do you think, what do you think are really the key outcomes that we should talk about and also address in the coming days during our job reset summit? Sure. Well, first of all, thanks again for having me. And I think what I would probably want to highlight are in pretty quick order are just maybe three things. First, in terms of our own hiring data, we continue to see the hiring recovery as we measure it on LinkedIn's platform continue, but it is definitely slowing down from a more kind of notable rebound that we saw over the summer. So hiring seems to be very correlated with shutdowns and reopenings. And so as we enter these waves of maybe more targeted shutdowns across Europe in the U.S. and elsewhere, it does kind of create speed bumps for the hiring pace. So our hiring rates were improving, but every time there's a shutdown, they tend to kind of retrench a little bit. So I think it's going to be a little bit stop and start in terms of the recovery from here on. The second thing I would maybe call out really quickly before I want to talk about skills as well, but the second thing I would call it really quickly is just one of the things we noticed in the hiring rate is the impact on women. When there are shutdowns, it seems to be posing a disproportionate burden on women. It was really interesting to us. We saw this happen in March and April where women's share of total new hiring just dropped by three to five percentage points globally. And it was pretty notable that for several months women just weren't applying and weren't changing jobs. I think a lot of uncertainty was a factor. I think additional childcare, additional elder care, a disruption in the routine probably just meant they were overburdened. So the real near-term aspect of this that's a problem is that women seem to have lost a little bit of ground temporarily. They tend to kind of speed up again as things reopen. But every time we close down again, we see women's hiring take another step back. So I think over time that accumulates and that's worrisome. And we see it in the official data as well here in the U.S. where I'm sitting right now that a lot of the improvement in cosmetic unemployment rates is really masking people exiting the labor force and not stopping looking. So I think that's a problem because that's the transition we don't want to see. We want to see transitions in the future of work that cause people to look at their skill set, find something adjacent and move into what we call new emerging jobs. And so before I, you know, leave you on to negative a note, let me just point out that we do think there are many, many emerging jobs. We think that the future of work is digital. We see huge demand for digital skills across a spectrum of jobs. But it's also human. We see a lot of demand for human skills, collaboration, compassion, believe it or not, negotiation, management, so the future of work is digital. It's also human. And maybe where I would leave you with my final thought is just to say, when you think about what are these new jobs, where are these new jobs emerging? Where are they clustering? We're seeing in fact that if the cluster is say in product development and in data and in AI, what's really, I think good news is that people who are able to make the transitions into those clusters, most of them come from other occupations. So whenever a new job, let me say it in plain English, whenever a new job kind of is emerging, it's so new that almost anybody has, can find a doorway or an access into it. You don't have to have such a narrow skill set to access this new emerging job cluster. So the good news is that it's sort of a green-filled site. And that's quite different than say some more traditional job clusters like engineering or people in culture, which have very sort of more narrow and defined skill sets. So broadly speaking, I think that we do see a lot of promise in the data, the IA space. But the good news is that you can come from just about anywhere and manage to make that transition. Thank you. Thank you very much, Karen. Thank you for your comments here. And I would like to go to Emily. I mean, the future of work is already here in your eyes. What does it look like? Yeah, thank you, Jan. And pleasure to be here. We've heard from Sadia and Karen how COVID has accelerated the survival of the future of work. In 2025, we think employers will about equally divide work between humans and machines and Automational Displaced 85 million jobs. And as Sadia so eloquently put, enough new jobs will pop up, but we need to prepare people for them. So for workers who remain in their role in the next five years, almost half are going to need to be reskilling in core competencies for that role. And those are the lucky ones. So the pandemic is disproportionately impacting already disadvantaged displaced workers are more likely to be, yes, female, as Karen pointed out, also to have had lower wages and lower educational attainment. But what really fascinates me is the opportunity now for educators and businesses and governments to come together to adapt, to accelerate the reskilling revolution to meet this acceleration that we're seeing in the future of work. And companies can, and in many cases are doing their part investing in reskilling their employees. 95% of business leaders this year report expecting employees to pick up new skills on the job, which is just a dramatic increase from a couple of companies alone are not enough. The recovery needs to involve coordinated reskilling efforts by institutions including governments so that we're providing accessible job-relevant learning also to the least advantage many of whom are not currently employed. They could be unemployed, they could be underemployed, or they could have stated that they exited the labor market. The good news I think is that we've already seen a surge in demand across the platform. We're humbled to be able to serve learners at this time. Relative to just before the pandemic to give you a sense, there are four times as many individuals now enrolling in online learning on Coursera under their own initiative. So since mid-March, more than 23 million new learners have joined the platform. We've seen over 60 million new enrollments. Equally, employers are looking to now offer their workers online learning opportunities at five times the rate of before the pandemic. So really stepping up. And I think most striking, nine times as many individuals are enrolling in online learning through our government programs aimed at workforce development for the unemployed or underemployed. And so, you know, there's a lot of challenge. There's a lot of tough news. The increased rate of change we're seeing in the development of online learning and it's becoming essential for the functioning of our families, of our societies, of our economies. And you know, I've been deeply inspired by how a whole community of educators and enterprise businesses and governments are prioritizing serving the world with generosity and innovation and dedication. And it also stands out that there is so much more to do because this acceleration isn't going anywhere. And automation is a word that we see a lot in this report. What is the real human impact and what can be done and how, you know, should we adapt? Thank you very much, Jan. And for us, when we look at that human impact in conversations with people who have been impacted by layoffs, three words keep coming up over and over that they choose to use. Lost, ashamed, confused. And these, when we speak to them, their response is not only have I lost work, it is also a sense of loss of identity and dignity. It feels like sometimes a COVID staple to wake up to yet another headline of thousands of workers having been laid off, but it's really important that we don't allow that to desensitize us to those human impacts that you mentioned of disruption, automation and transformation. And layoffs are merely just one example of those impacts on humans. So when we think about young people around the world trying to find their way, immigrants, refugees, veterans, and those even with a criminal background trying to be recognized for the skills they already have, women and minorities, as was mentioned, simply expecting to be valued for their contributions on par with everybody else. Those are the communities that are most affected by the twin factors that the report describes. And as Maria and Emily and Karen mentioned, the future of jobs report provides this data-driven foundation for what is happening, what is coming, and what that means for people, companies and governments. With that foundation in place and at our fingertips, though, I think what the report then challenges all of us to choose, it is to make fundamental choices. So are we going to simply sit back, wait for the report, so that we get a chance to read the next iteration of the report? Do we choose to continue with what often can be high-level statements and surface-level initiatives that don't go far enough and just keep us playing catch up? Or I think where the report points us to is to look in the mirror, ask some of the tough questions around how good is good enough, how big is big enough, how fast is fast enough, how fast are we delivering the type of high quality, high scalability investments that are actually going to move the needle for significant number of people around the world. And if we do choose to go with that path, that path of taking the most audacious route to actually addressing the challenge at scale, that's going to demand of us and of leaders and companies and in government and in society to make some fundamental changes. And just to call out a few of those shifts, they include going from talking about 21st century and future skills for what now is about 50 years to actually developing predictable and scalable models of radically improving some of those skills that Emily and Karen touched on in anybody, anywhere, or assuming everybody should become a coder to understanding that humans aren't just widgets and their interests and passions matter when they choose what transition path they want to take. From selling what often is an unrealistic narrative of everyone becoming a unicorn entrepreneur to investing in the infrastructure that's necessary to support small business owners and freelancers which are much more common transition paths for people in the new world of work, from promoting what often might be only the sexy technology jobs to improving the quality of the work that's being done. And the report refers to from a few different angles, whether those are in healthcare, whether they're in education, in people and culture. Also shifts from paying for simply program enrollments and course completions to actually paying for successful transitions from job A to job B. And then finally from measuring aggregate costs. We've been honored to have a chance to contribute to the report but are most excited to continue to play a part under Saadia's leadership and along with other partners at the reskilling revolution as a platform that hopefully can and has the chance of moving those significant needles on a problem that perhaps you could look at as one of the top two challenges we face in the next decade . We're going to continue to, as I mentioned, this week and further on doing the jobs resettlement to address these topics. So we're going to go now into the Q&A part. We have a first question coming from Singapore, from straights times. Do we have Shifali? Yes. Shifali, please. Can you hear me? You're very well. Thank you. Great. It's really good to be joining you in this remote fashion. I've gone through parts of your report and I haven't really gone through all the insights but it does seem to give a lot of hope. My question was really about, do you see most of the disruption happening in the Asia region given the size of the resources that are happening? Especially when you talk about 85 million jobs being displaced due to automation and 97 million new jobs being created. I also had a second question and that's about Singapore. The report mentions in one place that the acceleration in terms of automation is happening at a slightly slower rate than the global average. I was wondering how do you explain that? I think it's already automated. I'd like to hear your views on that. Sadia, would you like to start maybe on Asia, on Singapore? Sure. I can take a first shot at it and then I think I'm sure others will have more to contribute. You're absolutely right that there are differences by country and by region and in some cases it is because of the existing rate of digitization and automation across that particular economy where that is today, how much that's getting sped up. I think it's a great aspect which is how much are companies in that particular country or region already putting in place work from home policies or other ways in which work can be digitized. There's an element of this which is about the individual. There's an element of this which is about the basic underlying economic structure where most of the economic activity in that sector is. There are huge differences by countries but the overall trend is the results of information from medium and large companies from across the 26 economies that we were able to cover from across the 15 different industry sectors. I think where we have a blind spot and I also want to be sort of very upfront on that is what is happening in for example the care economy or what is happening in more of the blue collar workforce. This is most certainly more of the results of white collar workforce or very sort of broader value chains. So there is a mix of information that we're seeing here. In terms of Singapore specifically I think this depends again on the types of proactive policies that are in place. To some extent the rate of disruption or change is higher in those places which are not prepared for absorbing it and Singapore is not only a leader in terms of the types of skills that people are able to acquire but now the new efforts for supporting people through job transitions mapping out what are the jobs of the future and so when it comes to the Nordic countries when it comes to countries like Singapore there is definitely an advantage in terms of preparedness and that is why perhaps some of that disruption is seen at a slightly smaller scale than it is in other economies that are less prepared. Thank you Sadia. Do we have anything to add? Unfortunately I think I would only just be agreeing with Sadia there. From what we've done in our own work we've definitely seen that Singapore seems to be a leader in that space and so my estimation is that it's just as Sadia said the road has been paved already so they're starting a little bit further ahead. Thank you very much Karin. Good then we can move on to the second question. We have Pranjal Sharma from Business Standard in India. Is Pranjal with us? Yes we can see you Pranjal. I think you're still on mood. Unmute for the moment? Yes you're unmuted. So please your question Pranjal. Good morning everybody. You know very timely report. Sadia addressed one of the thoughts that I had but I think to get deeper into that the whole transition piece sounds very smart but actually it's very difficult. The impact on the job loss is really mostly on blue collar workers white collar workers have a better ability. My basic question is that when you talk about transitioning and Karin referred to that earlier as well the prep for transition is a huge effort. Everybody cannot just transition to these new 95 million jobs which are happening. And I don't know whether you have assessed whether the 85 million which are lost versus the 95 million which are created. What is the overlap between them if you do a Venn diagram for instance. The real effort and I think which is where the country's policy makers and enterprises really need to focus is how do they use the time required. Is it going to be too slow and too late for a lot of people and that's what I think the real fears are across the world. I mean both in emerging economies and in developed countries. Thank you for the question. I would see these two ends of the spectrum as so you've got the 85 million that are being disrupted the 95 million that are being created. But there is a massive gap between them. And I don't know if you can understand that. It's not necessarily fundamentally disappearing or fundamentally growing. But the skills range within them is completely changing. So one of the other messages that comes out of the report is that for the average job the average change in the core skills is 40 percent. So I think overall one big part of the answer is reskilling back to a system that has existed for 40 or 50 years at least in some parts of the world which is the traditional vocational training system. And that exists in countries like India in other parts of South Asia but equally some of the leaders in the world on that are in Switzerland or Austria or Germany. So that TVET system does have to be not only brought back but has to be upgraded and the skills that are provided through that system have to become a whole lot more rapid much better recognized and we have to sort of revalue that work. And maybe one other element I'd add there is we've all just seen through the pandemic who were truly the frontline workers who were the people that kept the engines of the economy going and that was the people that were working in the grocery stores the people who were the postal workers nurses and care workers. And there are certain professions that are either blue color or white color but require much more in person work than some of the work that can very easily be automated and digitized. So I think that's a in the long term that is going to be a positive in terms of the recognition of that form of work and a revaluation by all of our societies of that work. So there will need to be a change in both the blue color and very quickly on your point on job transitions that is another system which exists in certain parts of society but will or certain societies but will need a major upgrade which is if you think about the traditional career center or job center these are very community based localized support systems. There will need to be much greater strengthening much more investment in those in addition to providing a lot more of active support for making those transitions is also necessary. And third point that I'll stop after that is at the moment with the crisis. Governments in advanced economies in particular but also in emerging markets are distributing enormous amounts of funds to support workers to provide wage support to provide support to businesses to be able to keep their workers for longer. We now need to move into a more advanced way of improving upskilling and some of those job transitions. That takes different forms in different parts of the world but this is the kind of nuance that governments will need to move towards it's not just an era of bigger government it's also an era of requiring boulder government. Thank you, Sadia. Anything to add from our other panelists to Pranjal's question? I think we have a lot of questions about transitions are not always as seamless as I think we'd like to make them and one of the things that we've seen in our data is that when you break out the resilience of workers to make transitions those workers with the most disruptive digital skill sets have made the fastest transitions. So if you are already very knowledgeable about cloud computing or large data analytics, you're going to be able to do that. So I think that's a good aspect. If you have very basic digital literacy at the other end of the spectrum the rebound at least by our data has been slower for you in terms of getting hired and the transition has probably been a lot bumpier so I don't have anything to add to what my co-panelists have already said so I think that's a good point. Thank you very much Karen and Emily, you wanted to add also. Yes, so I agree completely with Sadia and Karen and I also think it's important to remember that when we talk about jobs that are being created by automation it's easy to think about the data scientist or the software engineer but there are a lot of things that are often easier transition points for folks who are moving out of blue collar positions. So one example is Google IT support specialist. There are thousands of companies around the world that use Google Cloud, Google Drive, many of you engage with Gmail and Google calendars. Those folks need IT support specialists working with their customers and helping them understand how to debug Google. And there is a fantastic training. It takes six to eight months. It's all online on Coursera called the Google IT support specialist certification and it takes people who most of them don't yet have a college degree and prepares them for jobs in this role and Google also works with their customers to match graduates of that program as well. So one example is Google Cloud. It's easy to think about the very tip of Maslow's hierarchy of data needs or technology needs or cloud needs but we also must remember that that foundation is built on folks who are largely administrators of that technology and that is a more natural shift that we're seeing especially for folks who are being involved in that role. And one of the most inspiring stories that we see in the data are the stories of people who say take the Google IT support certificate, transition into that role and while working in that role then up level in it masters of computer sorry, a bachelor's of computer science despite the fact that they never had a bachelor's before. So thinking about these types of data that we're seeing in the data that we get into a full diploma bearing degree that can ultimately unlock a white color job it's a long path it's not an easy path it requires the support of an employer if you're employed of a government if you're unemployed of your communities and your families but it's inspiring and it's what we're seeing and it is what the technology is creating. Thank you very much Emily. We have another live question unless anything you would like to add also to Pranjal's question how to master the transition. Just very quickly Pranjal I think in a lot of ways you head on the head that the crux of this right that we can look at the starting point and the endpoint but the transition in between is where the significant complexity in technology and data but in in conversation with people going through those individual personalized transitions and I would call up probably the three common hitfalls we see that's worthwhile considering as we think about their response to this. The first is the majority of our current public and private sector investments in this space are singular interventions right it's either an investment in skills development or the reality of an individual's transition when you look at the underlying data is it's going to take a package of supports it's going to need a bit of career readiness stuff some coaching and guidance hopefully the right skill training targeted to what they need access to human support even if that's virtual to help them make sense of that but we don't have a lot of investments in those flexible combined packages of support. So we have a lot of people who are already ready for it they might already be in a job and they're jumping over so there is work to be done on the demand side with employers to significantly prioritize those who are further from the center into those especially the most accessible roles that Emily was touching on and then I would say the third risk when it comes to these transition to truly affordable housing. So we have a lot of people who are willing to make a lot of money. You know money does talk whether it's private or public investment and we've got to start paying for the things that actually matter an example we have seen our companies and governments paying for distance traveled of someone from a even if it's not fully to be so if it's someone at 60% readiness to make a lot of money. So we have a lot of people who are willing to make a lot of money from an investment in supporting those furthest from the center with wraparound supports combination of technology and human support and then work on the demand side to make sure these 95 million that are going to be created are used for those who need it most. Thank you very much. We have another life question. Go ahead with your question. One second we we don't hear you and we are new to health Louis Peterson doesn't seem to be a mood. Can you try again? No, unfortunately we we can't hear you. So what I will do is I will read out one question in the studio. Can you please test with with Kelly Louis just that we get this on and on. How many workers do you expect will be upskilled in time to correspond with the loss in job roles due to automation? Anybody wants to go first to address that question? I can make maybe one to get the ball rolling. I think it will depend to some extent on how many workers depend to some extent on the financing and the incentives that are available, but what it has become very clear is most businesses actually do see that there is a return on investment within one year from having invested in rescaling and upskilling their workers. So one would think that the business case is there. I think why it's become quite hard at the end of the day is that there are a lot of very short-term decisions because of the current nature of the economic downturn and the constraints that they're facing. And that's where I think this element of stakeholder capitalism comes in. This is the moment for many large businesses to sort of live up to the conversation around stakeholder capitalism and to take on board that role. And I think that there are a lot of things that need to, that they can make. And at the same time ensure that even in cases where there are wholly redundant roles, some level of support is provided to those workers to help them transition to their next role, even if it's outside of the company and outside of their industry. And there are some companies that we are working with. In fact, we're going to put the long-term return on investment in mind rather than just the very short-term constraints that they're facing. Thank you, Sadia. Karen, Emily or Hamun, you want to come in on this question? Perhaps just a quick comment on that question of how long would this take and how many people could be put through it. I think to Sadia's point, there is dependency on the types of investments that are made. But I think what the data provides is just about anyone who might be impacted with the right levels of both training wraparound supports anywhere between a 6 to 12 month mark, you could meaningfully land them in an opportunity that is sustainable over time or at a minimum sets them up on a step ladder to more and more sustainable and lower risk opportunities. What's interesting from a funding perspective is depending on the profile of the supports they already have in place and the skills they might be starting from, the cost of that transition can range from anywhere in the order of magnitude of $50 and they do it on their own on an online platform without any human support to give or take around $10,000 if they are starting from a very frontline role trying to transition into a meaningfully higher order in order to make that transition successful. And so I think that's where that range then the question becomes how do we bring together the right stakeholders to fund that at the right scale in the right level so that the sufficient number of people, especially those who need it most can take advantage of the new opportunity. I will add only that governments in addition to enterprises will be critical to the new opportunity that we need. Coursera on April 24 launched our Coursera for Workforce Recovery Initiative aimed at helping governments provide unemployed citizens with free access to job relevant learning on Coursera and we have seen huge uptake we have activated over 325 programs, more than 70 countries, 30 U.S. states and cities, 700,000 unemployed workers have been enrolled in Deshaev 3 million courses preparing especially for fast growing entry level jobs in IT healthcare business and it's been astounding and it's only the beginning so countries with active programs range from Albania to Greece to Singapore to Ukraine and as Hamunso aptly put it the wraparound services are really critical to the success so in one example Costa Rica's government has launched the Coursera to identify current job openings and their skill requests then they've built live learning programs on Coursera that teach those skills and then they're connecting graduates with the relevant skills directly to the hiring companies. In another example U.S. state of Maine their department of labor is targeting specific skills that help workers qualify for open jobs, think project management and so making sure that folks who are in the process of searching for a job are supported in getting education as part of that search so that search can be successful and so that they can be up leveling in their careers so absolutely we need companies on board and individuals play a critical role but so do governments and I think the scale that we'll reach will be largely determined by those private public companies that have the ability to engage those for the world. Thank you Emily. We give it a one more try. Carl Louis Peterson from Denmark and let's see if we can hear you otherwise I can read out your question I received it also in written. Carl can you try? Unfortunately now the audio does not work but I have received your question so I will try to read it out and see the potential move see the potential move 44% of their workforce forced to operate remotely since the lockdown millions have worked from home and many want to keep doing so. How many jobs will be lost especially among the unskilled and the service and transport sectors in city centers and what will be the overall effect on urbanization? I don't know how many of you have started but I think everyone here has a lot of information on the different parts of this puzzle. So the ILO since the beginning of the lockdowns has been trying to trace what it means for some of the office closures and what kind of job losses that create. So in this particular quarter if we think about the cumulative office closures and what that means in terms of the number of jobs that are lost in the world and the number of jobs that are lost in the world and the number of jobs that are lost in the world. So you are absolutely right that there is some element of this that simply cannot move to remote work and there is a large set of people that are not able to perform their work online and also don't happen to be frontline workers that are essential to their work. So there are certain sectors where for example take aviation travel tourism. Some of these companies will not necessarily be able to continue to maintain their current staff. I think we are starting to see that there have been massive layoffs in aviation. In certain societies governments have provided that support but in the longer term we might be looking at some of the data from China or some of the countries that emerge from that first wave of lockdowns. Some parts of human behavior and societal behavior went back to quote-unquote normal relatively quickly and that applies to services, entertainment, eating out etc. Some of those behaviors went back to normal relatively quickly and so there may be a faster bounce back in those sectors. So I think it's going to depend very much on which sectors and then what that composition is off a particular economy. How many people come from a sector that may not recover fast and how many come from a sector that does. Thank you, Sadia. We're almost finished this briefing. We have a minute left. Karen, you would like to add to that answer. I think we have a lot of information on the migration data. We are looking at migration data which allows us to see how people, when they update their profile, we can see where they are and if they've moved. And what we are seeing is indeed people are leaving certain cities, not all, but often large densely populated and expensive cities for what we call like migration from certain cities but not all cities which we think is probably temporary and not permanent but again, that's speculation. I don't have particular data that tells us whether that's permanent or not. The second thing that we're seeing is that people are increasingly looking for remote work. So we saw a four fold increase in the jobs that were advertised or posted on our website. We saw a three fold increase in people who are actually searching when they come job seekers are looking for remote work. All of this since March is massive increases worldwide in the hunt for remote work. Still, it only adds up to being a fraction of the total amount of work that's available. So there are many people who won't be eligible or find a job. So that's a big part of the construction. So there are sectors where it's not really convenient. One of the things I want to say and I'll close here because I know time is short is I think we need to think about what work is going to look like if there are successive pandemics because this is just one virus. But there's no reason to think there won't be another pandemic in the future. There's no reason to think there won't be another pandemic in the future. There's no reason to be as resilient as possible. Whether workers are resilient and they have these portable skills, whether cities are set up to flex as need be to protect safety. And I think that's going to be the trick going forward is setting up for the risk that there might be other