Mellon foundation for funding our program. Think the office of congressman Gerry Connolly for arranging meeting space. Above all, think congressman hill foster, a phd in physics from the 11th district of illinois. And his communication director for their help in organizing the briefing. To amanda thanks perry for organizing the briefings. Some of you may remember a cover from the new yorker that came out just a few weeks ago. I will show you an example. It shows robots going about their daily work, coffee and their lunch pails. Onlyest of it, while the person in the picture is delegated to a panhandler baking for money. It speaks to the widespread anxiety that exists today, that our nation is making work obsolete. The first time the technological innovation has transformed how we make a living. Question in todays briefing is what can the past tell us about the impact of automation on employment on the workforce . We have three leading experts today who will help us with this. I am not going to introduce them in detail. There are leaflets outside that their particulars and their publications. I will simply mention them in their institutions and the order in which they will be speaking. Amy is a professor of history at Iowa State University who is written widely on History Technology and science in medicine. Is a assistant professor of Labor Relations law history at cornell university. He has also written extensively on the economy in the workforce. Coopersmithjonathan , associate professor at a m university who has written about a variety of topics. I will just turn it over to amy. Thank you very much. Historyo the National Center and to gain and amanda for organizing this. Dane and a amanda for organizing this. There is a long history of technological unemployment that we can talk about. We could go back to integral in times but given that i have 10 minutes, i will start in the 19th century with an episode that some of you may be familiar with. It is part of the context of the British Industrial revolution, the mechanization, the movement of textile makings. From cottages of homes into the mills. Where you have the resistance, or you would call it then machine breaking. Who is against technology as a matter of principle, but is not how the Luddite Movement started out. It was campaigning for paying attention to the treatment of workers. Whathappen to craftsman, happened to pay and jobs in the context of this rapid change. Moving rapidly ahead, and switching to the United States, think back to your High School History course. The 1920s was known as the roaring 20s. It is equated to american newbeing, the market, electric appliances, radio cars, corporate laboratories were coming out with exciting aspects. The great depression. 25 percent unemployment, higher in many pockets, there was a question, what had gone wrong . There wasarters concern that the prosperity of the 1920s, the very changes of science and technology had might alsosperity, be connected to the crash and economic crisis. , we were a said mighty, cocky nation, we invented mass production and massproduced everybody out of a job. They forgot that machinery do the discussion in the 1930s about technological unemployment was both broad search and focused on and case studies, as we would call them. For instance, critics in the 1930s said that approximately 28,000 Railroad Workers had been displaced from their jobs by the introduction of automatic loading machines, and other technical changes in railroads. Introduction of the direct dial system. That was blamed for displacing almost 72,000 human operators. At women who used to sit switchboards and physically connect calls, their function was no longer needed. Introduction of the talkies. This is when movies went from silent to sound. Yandellictures had players or entire orchestras in peters to accompany silent pictures. S came in, they were no longer needed. 70,000 miners. In theogical change industry. You, it goes back to the 1930s. Many, many cartoons showing robots throwing people out of work. Broadly, how do we define progress in the american machine age . In 1932, the chicago fair had the same industry applies, man conforms. It is interesting to think about the ramifications. This concern about technological unemployment during the depression reach the highest levels. In his 1940 state of the union address, president roosevelt finding jobs. Without a way to employ our labor, with the efficiency of our industrial process has created. The concern was such that there was talk about whether you the United States should adopt a science holiday, putting Scientific Research on hold. Give over social science, our economics and our sociology time to catch up. Arguing against this during the depression, american scientist like robert, joined with leading American Industries to make an 25 ment that, despite unemployment, despite concerns about machines during people out of job, they argued that what this country needed was to speed up investment in science and technology. He promised that advances and research in the hands of corporate industry would ultimately translates to american progress, which they defined as meaning a higher standard of living. Did new yorks worlds fair, they promise people to world full of wonderful cars, multi lane highways, also wonderful home appliances. They promised these things were just on the road if americans continue to have faith in sides and technology in the hands of industry. World war ii interrupted that discussion. After the war, the question of technological unemployment came back with a focus on a word that was relatively new in the vocabulary for a lot of people, automation. 1946 wrote an article machines without men, with anticipated that the automatic factory made modernight, no where was man more obsolete than on the factory floor. They had this idea that runseers dream the factory itself. The discussion continues, john f. Kennedy in 1960 spoke about medicinen as a dark industrial dislocation, increasing unemployment and poverty. The challenge of the 60s to maintain full employment at a time that automation is replacing man. Can see the cart tunes the cartoons. This worker is being processed. Time magazine wrote about automation refugees. Quoting one worker saying, every time a new machine is put in, two or three jobs are gone. All through this postwar period, you had the context of the cold war. The United States had to pursue automation because the soviet union was doing it. We had to keep up or slip back to a secondclass power. See, the discussion of technological unemployment is inescapably intertwined all the way through with this writer context of what is happening in american politics and American Economics. By the time you get to the 1970s and 1980s, the discussion of technological unemployment is tied up with robotics, japanese advances in robotics is the equivalent of sputnik. 1990s we get all of the vocabulary about people needing to adapt to the new age of technological change. Hiring, worries about people being roadkill on an automation superhighway. Again, tied up with the broader context of what is happening in america or generally, concerned about technological unemployment, really never completely vanished , but it hit the headlines which with much more frequency after the 2008 economic crisis. Said,president obama there are structural issues with our economy were a lot of businesses want to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. I have given you some samples of headlines here. Thesey ways, of course headlines are designed to catch peoples attention by showing the most alarm of sentiment. That is part of what i am suggesting here. A real basis for concern about technological unemployment. It reallythat, reflects a broader sense of unease among americans about the stability and the safety of our economy and society, with a sense that things are changing so rapidly. Is something that economists have studied, sociologists, engineers and scientists themselves. 2013 there was a high profile study out of oxford where they looked at more than 700 occupations and concluded that 47 of them were at a high risk of being automated over the next one or two decades. Ofy pointed to specific jobs physical work, anything that was routine. Deliveries, cab driving, fast food, but they suggested that routine knowledge work was in danger of being replaced. Paralegals, and accountants, tax preparers and journalists. A couple of academics out of m. I. T. Who looked at this question wrote a book the second was seen age the second machine age. They said technology is always destroying jobs, now the piece is accelerating. We are not creating jobs at the same piece we need to. Recent Economic Indicators reflect this. Fewer people are working, and wages are falling even as productivity and profits soar. We do not have time to get into the economic details, but important things that i want to point out as a historian, despite the 2008 economic crisis, we really have not seen talk that is the equivalent of the depression for a science holiday. Today, for better or for worse, we have come to the point of view that the Consumer World of technology was progress for many of us in america. You have seen temporary push backs against uber, not just in the u. S. But elsewhere, for various regions reasons. Fear about technological unemployment reflects reality, but it is also just a general assumption, something you see casually thrown around in speeches and in the media. As jonathan and louis will talk about, it connects to intersections of economic life. Off shoring, international movement. It a broader questions of unemployment and social and economic justice. For so many of us, work has come to seem likes part of our identity. About technological unemployment, we need to think about the role of work in our life, which leads to thinking about the role of leisure. A 15 houre at workweek by now, obviously we are not there. Bill gates has proposed the idea of robot taxes, and using the fors for education, ideas universal basic income also fit in here. This link to discussions about access to education, structural discrimination, economic inequality, paul basically said, smart machines made higher gdp possible and reduce the demand for people, including smart people. We could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrued to weber owns the robots. What does all this mean . New jobs, does create but the question is, where, how fast, what type of requirements do you have for those . Somebody laid off cannot go tomorrow and take up a job as a dentist as a new in the depression era. Technology creates new jobs and redefines old ones. It brings up issues of how we keep American People flexible. Issues of retraining and entrepreneurialism. One concern is that we are headed towards job polarization, were a lot of the workforce will have opportunity for high pay, high school jobs. At the other and you have low pay, low skill jobs that are resisted to automation, but not much in between. Something i want to throw out there that we can talk about about thisinking question of jobs, also we need to think about gender and other dimensions. Women have been underrepresented. Many jobs related to stem and computer work, but they have been overrepresented in service positions, which some say are harder to fully automate. Nursing, he cannot automate the curing part, though the japanese have what they call caring robots. Our women suited to this, our men suited to this . Technological change, ultimately, we can think of it as a miracle either. History does not give us a simple answer, but given the sheer persistence and apt of concern about technological unemployment, now stretching back centuries, we really need to think about how this connects to our broader history and future of American Economic life, social organization, and where we are going for 2017 onwards. Thank you. [applause] i would not come myself a , but i car luddite will not use powerpoint. It is wonderful talking about these issues relating to the future. As always, i think history can help us think about what is new and what is not in our current period of economic change. And america was founded as a great agricultural nation. Within a few short decades we went through a massive transformation. That disruption, that hadamental disruption already guided so much of our political and economic history. Professor was saying, we are living in another great transformation. When the Digital Economy is beginning to replace the industrial. Threshersy mechanical , American Manufacturing has been robot a sized, producing eight job crisis. Terrifying end a of human work. I think we should not think of it that way. The reality need neither be dystopian or utopian. It will be the results of choices that we make. Just as how we make choices in the Industrial Age. In betting knowledge, skill and strength into a machine is nothing new. If you have used a sewing machine Artificial Intelligence will per will replace if we learn how to harness it into a more productive and better paid workers, just like other troubles have been in the past. For 200 years, our educational system and job life has tried to teach us how to work like robots. We should not be surprised that when robots finally come and take our jobs. The point is not to become better robots than robots, it is to become better humans and our ancestors. Creative, caring and curious. Caring and curious is what will define the human in the 21st century. Either what makes for human and humane works. We should use this moment as an opportunity to think about our longheld american values. Rising industrialization in the 19th century. Turn us into a nation of wage earners who depended on a wage. Low wages are part of the problem, but wage labor in itself was a problem, in which one did not have freedom to control when they will work. This is a greater threat to our vision of independence and democracy. Today we talk a lot about the American Dream. We have read a lot about our jobs and take, but they mostly have a lot to do with consumption. This older American Dream is a more important American Dream. It is still persistent to entrepreneurs and our independent 1099 contractors. That is selfdetermination. The 19th century, the federal government supported the decision of the homestead act, it was to make our citizenry independent. Was just a way towards that goal. Sadly, for various reasons, it all fell apart. There was the coming of new machines, industrial agriculture , and the ways in which these farms refinanced. Its an patient lingers on. Ambition lingers on. Industrial age in the 20th century, we traded independence for a good job. We made laws during the 1930s to ensure that workers were treated fairly. As long as that industrial economy lasted, those laws worked. We develop institutions to turn all that productivity, all that automation into rising wages. That productivity has been the source of all wealth in the history of capitalism. Resources, but how we turn automation into money for all of us. Are struggling with, and probably why many of you are here today, is the mismatch between our laws and economy. I do not think you can legislate capitalism. The rules of labor and Capital Support workers and business to make sure that capital is channeled into growth areas. For some critics of the ofelance economy, critics this more automated economy, the answer is simply to turn back the clock. Forobligation provides industrial firms almost a intury ago be shoehorned todays very different economy. As we talk about this postwar and romanticize manufacturing, we should not be romanticizing beast jobs. For many of those who are excluded from these jobs, especially women and africanamericans, the rest of the economy would not feel aureus. But even for the white men who have a good paycheck, working on an assembly line, or in a mine is dehumanizing, backbreaking, and soul breaking work. Humans should never do the work of machines. Think about this, we should think about policies that income,independence in but it might not look like the 19th or 20th century. As historians, we like to talk about this moment as it transitioned for a step in the transition we have been enduring for centuries. When historians think about this, we often do not talk about the industrial revolution. We talk about the industrious revolution. It is the reorganization of people that makes industrialization possible. The first factories were just buildings. The First Assembly lines were just gravity slides. We develop technologies for these reorganizations of people. Then this technology was intertwined with this reorganization. Even though we talk about this as a second machine age, as in the 18th century, the reorganization of People Matters as my comment if not, more than the reorganization of machine. I think we should think of this as a second industrious revolution. Since the reorganization of people, at least to me, and many other historians, is as shocking as technology. This is not to say that technology does not matter. We should not be naive about what ais will be able to do. When partnered with teleoperated robotic bodies, as are being willoped at m. I. T. , it allow the rapid automation of any automated physical or digital process. Instead of having to instruct these machines, we can teach them just by doing the task again and again and again. Just like the drivers who taught tesla how to drive a car, digital Migrant Workers will be running robot bottle robot bodies. The task is repetitive, it will no longer exist. The larger question is this, should humans be doing those jobs . Should they be making change . Person,f is that every people are doing more creative and caring work. Just as we do not all go out in we field, we should not should let robots hold our towels and drive our cars. By not taking advantage of peace human resources, we are squandering them, squandering lives, just as much as we are depleting other nonrenewable resources. At google they have stopped measuring projects by dollars and started to measure them by engineers working lives. How many lives would it take to make this project succeed . Livest think engine years matter more than anybody elses, and a sixpack that you dont either. That is what we are talking about. His organizational change, this thestrious revolution, change is coming. It is much about automation and organization. It is no surprise that these conversations of ai, we switch into conversation about freelancers and the economy and how americans are working. Thesyd over how uber anxiety over how uber has nothing to do with the app. It is americans becoming more insecure. From 2005 to 2015, 94 of net outside of the traditional work. Outside of full employment. These are independent contractors and freelancers. All the Economic Growth of the second industrious revolution, the world of the wage is giving way to the world of the independent workforce. Already, a third of our workforce participates in this alternative world of work. There is a primary or supplementary form of income. Most of these workers are not uber. G for over 1 of the workforce is mediated through these work forms. Just like the steam engine accelerated the factory, so will the digital platform accelerate economy. They are trying to solve for a change that has already occurred. What is new today is not just not just this technology, but the possibility that workers might be as productive on their a firm. Ith in working globally, selling globally. Incorporation is no longer as necessary as it once was. For me, this is what is truly novel. Platforms are going to give companies a run for their a run for their money and for Talent Corporation has been the institution of the industrial era, organizing people, capital, manufacturing, distribution, you name it. All of those no longer need to be channeled through a firm. Automation, that is what is truly novel in this history of andtalism, refashioning supplementing of the corporation. That is what is exciting it is what america needs. That is what america, i think, is all about. Weay as jobs are eliminated, have a chance to discover the older American Dream of independent work, independent from the corporation. And so, as we try to rethink about what to do, we should try to capture what i think is the best of then and now, combining prosperity and flexibility. In this big economy, we might have the best of both worlds, economy and an economy before slave labor, individuals possess the productive capacity of an industrial economy, even though the act can go globally through leveraging automated forms of work. We should use this as an opportunity to liberate us from the factory, the office, just as we did from the plow. The challenge of the 21st century will not be defending our robotlike jobs, but discovering what is valuable in being human. This will not naturally come out better for everybody. Withcan history is dottede conflict dotted with conflict over productivity, it is a Political Choice and it feels dark in many ways these days. Bu if we create a system that allowst for flexibility into some point this new independent workforce, ubi, etc. Something akin to dealing with the reality of the new economy as we have dealt with the reality of the new industrial workforce, then things will turn out fine. Work is part of the Human Experience and defined as purposeful action, it will be part of our Human Experience. But as a wage connected to a job, it might just be a passing moment in economic history, a contingent part of the industrial economy, a footnote to history that only People Like Us historians should really know about. We have to figure out ways to turn this a. I. Productivity into prosperity and by embracing the flexible digital work, rather than fighting it, i think we can provide a new American Dream that is in essence the oldest one of all, independence and security. Thank you so much. [applause] one of the shifts here is you are moving away from physical labor as a major attribute of a job. And we are seeing this everywhere. If you look in the retail industry, for over a century there have been buffeted ways of change, including the latest in innovation on online stores. We should note by the way it took amazon a decade and a billion dollars before it made its first profits. Change haslly, job been perennial in its accelerating. I cannot move up and down. Ok. 1960s,k in the president kennedys secretary of heap,feared a human slag that we will have two nations, one of the well educated, well employed, and the others who are going to be discarded. Jonathan so we have a long history of these concerns, of these fears. And if you look at this current period of pessimism, a lot of similarities. There are worldwide challenges give jobsents, how to to their people to make sure that other people are employed. If you think the system is working, ask somebody who isnt. Fears of foreign competition, fears of immigrants, and a justified sense of accelerating technological accelerating social change and who will see that sense of change actually accelerating into the future. And we are going to see that as people talk about several areas, reorganization, virtual migration or telepresence, a possible decentralizing oand 3d printin, but in all cases we see efficiency and almost every area of the economy, making it easier to do more with less. Meanwhile, you have other changing factors. Coverage of7 media the events, social media, which more, watchn read more, publish more about what they are doing, increasing longevity, people are living longer and we are not talking about decades of retirement, which is putting certain strains on retirement systems. And changing concepts of employment. A lot of businesses or sectors, two tiers of employment, one for permanentard with and temporary jobs. The rising of the gig economy. A lot of changes and as what was said, there is a lot of areas where policymakers should be thinking about, how can we adopt the existing regulations to the Current Situation . How can we increase flexibility, how can we increase entrepreneurialism for people . What is not going to work, as amy noted, the idea of a science holiday. We live in a competitive world and if we do not if we say we are not going to do something, a country probably another country probably will. What i would like to conclude with is to go back to the Great British economist john maynard after, writing in 1930, the depression and talking about this big fear, the new challenge of technological unemployment. Keynes was an optimist and he ended, this is only a temporary phase of maladjustment, it means in the long run that mankind is it solving its economic problem, abundanceeconomic means we are going to have the said, toty, as lewiouis think about the creative what were the other two . Caring and curious. Jonathan that means rethinking questions about work and income, work and identity, work and the citizenship. These are really exciting problems to have. I look forward to the next few decades with a certain degree of trepidation, but a lot more sense of anticipation and excitement, because we do have opportunities that weve never had before. Thank you. [applause] would like to open this up for questions and comments. Yes, mark . Mark i have a question for louis. First, it is pretty well known that we have been experiencing states a decline of certain startups. The ratio of young firms to old firms has been going down, the absolute number of new firms established has been going down. With thethis fit perspective that you described in which we may have less available for corporations . Louis i think part of it is a couple to her factors. This is a problem, the startups going down. And what is counterintuitive about it is that we think they are all around us. We hear this is the future of the economy, but it turns out over the last 40 years weve made it easier to lend money to consumers, than to businesses. Imbalance there is an in the financial system. For instance, small and mediumsized businesses have to often, they cannot get commercial loans anymore. We have made it easy to secure consumer credit, but nearly impossible to occur business once secure business one s. If you look at a capital needed for Small Businesses, the Small Business administration or kickstarter, these are rounding errors, on what is actually needed. I think people would like to start these, but we are living in a time of insecurity. It is hard to start a business if you are worried about health care, if you are worried on whether you are able to make rent or taker of your kids. So part of this is this time over the last 40 years, we have increased the insecurity of American People and i think it is constraining their creativity, entrepreneurialism, and these of the policies we need to think about, in terms of capital, but also in terms of risk taking, especially for younger people. Wonder if we are reaching a point, you focused a bit on manufacturing, but we are manufacturing where manufacturing will become obsolete with a 3d machine. I caneed a certain item, use my 3d printer, irghright,d make the item myself. I do not need anybody else to make it or go out and buy it, all i need to do is basically by the raw materials. Of thefacturing outside household seems to me to be becoming obsolete. Probably not becoming obsolete, but more economically challenging. One of the more exciting areas of innovation are the maker spaces you are seeing pop up in a lot of countries. Jonathan one of the interesting ways that Public Libraries are reinventing themselves is they are installing 3d machines. This is the sort of creative thinking, which does not take much money, but if you are a Public Library it does take a lot of money relatively. How can we encourage this innovation from below is what we should be thinking about, this experimentation, and how we do risk ofduce the individuals into smaller institutions. Amongne of the truisms historians is to protect where technology is going. Things will happen that we do not anticipate, but things were talking about now they get sidetracked or take longer than we anticipate, so if you look at all the predictions, we were supposed to be driving flying cars by now and somehow that never quite got there. We are waiting for that. So it is interesting to think about where we might be going kalimba it is not something where we can have a fixed timetable and it takes time for them to diffuse it through the population, so certain segments of the population, certain geographic regions, will get access to things like that before others. So you will have a mixed economy where the technology is mixed, the work is mixed, the consumerism is mixed, so it makes the picture far more complex to think about. Yes . First, jonathan touched on this, which we do not really have an option as a country on this. We cannot walk away from the technology. If you look at the competition between nations, the nation with the highest gdp growth will be the nation that deploys the robot factories as quickly as possible. So summarily, become petition between companies, the company that wins will be the company that supports the robots as quickly as possible, rather than treating employees right. Ok . It seems that there is a fundamental conflict between what you are hoping for and the natural result of competition between nations and between corporations. Is there any way out of that conundrum . Jonathan yes. And we will find out soon enough. Of thely one challenges is with that company, what will they do with the money they make from matt . Will they that . Will they be like amazon and reinvest, will they take more profits out of it . That is one of the real challenges, is what how do the profits from this get reinvested and i honestly do not know. Said, there are many conceivable paths for that but at the very least we need to be thinking about those in raising those issues now, before you have the single robot factory. Louis and i think how we make use of the robots. Capitalism is not a zerosum game. I think what is excited about our economy is that it is going to create all these robots. Time, that thein demographic shift globally as the populations in advanced countries are being reduced, and a lot of our Economic Growth comes from more labor, van we will need then we would need more robots. The question is how do we use this to transform how we work and our quality of life. Although it will be terrifying at that moment, we mentioned before, and in the long run we are all dead, as he famously said, so thinking through the shortterm transition is the hardest part of all. Yes . I [indiscernible] an economy that is curious justified as a utopian question, but it seems to me that a lot of the demand for facing the future involves basic changes in a subject about politics and markets. The way i am looking at this and i wonder how you think whether this is a productive way the real challenge is rethinking the direction of as as a problem of any quality and sustainability as a closely related question. In other words, instead of thinking we can make more stuff with the 3d producers, how can you have an equitable, global quality of life and maybe reduce the amount of stuff we consume, but have a better quality of life with things that are more creatively and curiously generated. I do not think manufacturing is going to go away, if you look at aerospace and aviation, boeing and how they are making airplanes, or how people are curiously thinking about the storage of electricity. I think there are a couple different questions there. Louis if we talk about manufacturing, we think about manufacturing and a mass production and is certainly for things like planes, cars and computers, these are complicated supply chains that need to be managed and produced. But we are opening of this new manufacturing, the different gizmos and things may be only i want and only you can imagine. That is a wonderful thing to be an. In terms of globalization, we produce global poverty in the last 20 years mainly have in human history. And maybe that has out a toll on the american economy, but for the human race as an overall, this has been a wonderful thing. And it is important that as we move into, this is what brings about Global Political stability, right . We want everybody to be part of this new world. So as we think about that, it is important that we understand that globalization is part of the story, but also it is a good part of the story, as it comes about. Raised theu also important question of sustainability, this is not the discussion about jobs and economics and internationalization that can or should happen in isolation, from questions such as what is happening to the world in terms of environmental wellbeing. So manufacturing transport, all these things we need to think about when supporting new industries, the international dimensions, the Scientific Consensus around Climate Change is essentially pretty clear, so we need to integrate these discussions, which is by no means simple, but you central essential. Yes . Thank you for the insights. Bodyoes the legislative address these questions in a way that is constructive and not polarizing . How do we look at these longerterm issues collaboratively and constructively without the polarizing partisan constraints that i feel that we are trapped in . I try to point to an older tradition that we can draw on, that i think is not a radical position [indiscernible] louis no, i think that this idea of american independence, the idea of an independent workforce, Small Businesses, this is shared in the left and right, at least the moderate left and right, and figuring out policies that enable people to take risks, so they can start Small Businesses. I think that this has been tapped as welfare or socialism, but this is not well for welfare or socialism, this is how to empower a workforce, you empower the business class, be creative in the world. And it is what is necessary. I think trying to figure out how we recast some of these ideas in new ways, or actually in the older ways, i think that is what is important. As we think about is legislatively. Thisthan i think part of is doing what we are doing here, my short answer to almost everything is to hire more historians. [laughter] but to have conversations like this and maybe try to get more people thinking about this, having discussions like this. And there have been efforts in various areas to create organizational mechanisms to bring people together and give them brief this guy whose name i forget but there are institutional ways to do that. They take efforts and one of the challenges, as you said, this is a hyper partisan well, according to what i read in the papers but having these discussions is a good place to start. And i think that it is something that we should maybe be asking or demanding of our universities. Have us come over to and be more active outside of the classroom, doing events like what the National History center is doing. And we can, we will make predictions and we will be wrong, but at least thinking about the future and trying to get people to actively shape it is a key part of what american democracy should be. As he said, part of the conversation does have to be around education, but it is not a nice simple formula, such as give everybody two years of Computer Programming education and every thing will be fine. It is not that simple and straightforward, so you need conversation about education, the technical skills, but also in the humanities, providing that intellectual and social basis for the creativity and curiosity that we talked about, so part of it is education and part of it is providing people that sense of security. You know, there are universities that have courses on entrepreneurship. There are ways to promote that, but at the same time recognizing that human beings, there is no way to ask everybody to be entrepreneurial anymore than we ask everybody to have their favorite color be blue, so recognizing that changes are not going to work equally well for everybody, so trying to provide basic security, so you can do away with some of the fear surrounding technological change that i think is has really been ever present through the 20th century and into the 21st. Thinking about economic security, health care as jonathan mentioned, family security, so again it is no nice simple answer. But that is part of our job as historians, to think longterm. Louis i think also, if i can in the way that historians like to talk too much when we think about the past, the transition into the Industrial Age and equitable transitions. Think about the late 19th century, this is the world we are afraid of, where jobs are grinding, there is no pay, people at the top are making all the money, and it seems like a dickensian nightmare. But in the middle of the great depression, it was not just the talking have historians about a bunch of liberals, but there was a rightwing new deal, overseen by people who inherited from the hoover administration, texans who did things like take all the idle money on wall street, that had nowhere to go, just like today we got about 2. 7 trillion in idle capital in the banks, not just talking about corporations and Access Requirements they borrowed it and put it into new startups like aerospace, electronics, like synthetic rubber. Theresate 1930s, something called the reconstruction finance corporation, and it brought us things like the suburbs and aerospace and rural electrification. So we have asked these cautions about how we bring role americans into the economy and had we provide housing for the new century, how do we think about all the new industries that require capital and do not have them, to create jobs for people at scale, all the other aspects and this is done by railway executives, bankers, and it was not just a bunch of liberal eggheads. It was actual people in the world. Looking to these other bipartisan models in the past could be a way of pushing forward the economy. Yes . Wanted to bring up i think running through your presentations is some become a you mentioned rightwing new deal, the reconstruction finance corporation, but what is, where is that coming from it is also government. There has been discussion about looking to the future, we are planning, there is a sense of the possibilities, i like the possibilities and the optimism, but are we overlooking some of the forces that are working against any kind of planning or activist government in a sense that could influence the development of universal income or planning for job loss and that kind of thing . That is one of the reasons that you are here and we are here, to try to foster this debate. Again, we are a democracy and it is incumbent upon us to be active, to be part, to be participants. This is one of the challenges, to get people, Small Businesses and large businesses, governments, and other sectors, ngos, thinking actively about the possibilities here. Ands a very flexible future we cannot design it, we can help try to shape trends, promote important values, including sustainability and others. But we need to know what they are and to try to create what was called how to get people to do the right thing, to move towards new world, i will get this right, i apologize texans forget three things. We will forget at least one of them. To be a creative, carrying, and caring, and curious, what are the infrastructures or goals of doing that. I will interject one quick question and then i think i need to close it. But given the shifts that louis was talking about in terms of the move toward a gig economy, i would like to take it back to amys mention of gender and i am curious as to how these transformations may be shaping sort of the role of women in the economy and opportunities, or lack there of for them . It is interesting, as a historian we like to look at what has changed and what hasnt. It is interesting that for all the changes that have occurred in womens lives and in society and in mens lives and the lives of families, from the 20th to the 21st century, the most common jumps for women today are still some of the same ones they were a decade ago. Secretaries, teachers, nurses, and so it is interesting to think about the social forces that are shaping that and the way that those jobs may or may not be affected by automation. It is not just a question of jobs eliminated, it is a question of jobs that are never created. For example, in our department we have literally one secretary and even though the department expands, that is all we have had. She is wonderful, but is also because so many of us are doing our own typewriting, placing our own calls, doing our own photocopies. It is not jobs eliminated, it is also jobs that were not created, which are hard to think about. But to come back to nursing, demographically as the population ages there is the talk that nurses and home care will be expanding job opportunities, but again, part of the thing is those that have been so stereotyped as jobs for women, that while there is talk about bringing more minutes and nursing, that there is reluctance to that, push back. So i do not see that you can separate these questions of jobs and future change from the history of how jobs have been gendered. Why we have seen some jobs as jobs for women, others as jobs for men. So i think gender is at the center of the conversation, because as is race in a lot of ways, in the economy there is so much hammering around wightmans jobs white mens jobs that have disappeared because of industrialization, and this is sort of disappearing of jobs for all kinds of people. We have seen women be more adaptable to the new economy. Louis at the and ebay, etsy, most sellers are women and it has created and since the passage of the aca, people have gone from about 18 , that as a primary income, to 35 as the primary income on etys platform etsys platform. This is a model for the new economy, finding new platforms to be creative and work for people. Is i think largely etsy discounted because it is women sellers and buyers and somehow it makes it the relevance as not as important as uber and tesla and other things, but it is just as important and in a lot of ways it is a vehicle for the future. I think if we have to recenter the conversation about who counts in the economy and discount we did not come before, people of color, women who are not part of the postwar suppose it manufacturing utopia, they are here and they count and they are working and they are creative and we need to make sure that they are included as part of the economy and they are already insisting on that. Amy part of it is, in the United States the number of women going into engineering grew significantly during the late 1960s, 70s and 80s, but more recently it has plateaued. The number of women studying computers in college peaked a number of years ago and has declined recently, so there is discussion about that, how to get more women into stem fields. That is in. A whole separate conversation that there is no way that we have time for. Please join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] to our sponsors as well. Amy thank you. [chattter] next, Jonathan White talks about the dreams of soldiers and civilians during the american civil war. He detailed the dreams of several individuals and reflected on the underlying emotions behind them, such as fear of death or hope of returning home. He also discusses how dreams became part of the wartime culture, reflected in such things as songs and poems. This this discussion was part of the annual Lincoln Forum symposium in gettysburg, pennsylvania. It is just