Welcome, everyone, um to our panel, on, a global perspective. Uh on the work of the future. Um i'm very excited, and to be here with you all today, my name is jason jackson, i'm four career development, assistant professor, of political economy. I'm at mit. And today's, panel. Addresses, the questions, that we've been, discussing, all morning, in a global perspective. The topic of the panel, is the following, while new technologies, related to ai and advanced automation. Are being developed, and deployed globally. The implications, for workers significantly. Varies across countries, and jurisdictions. So a lot of the discussion, that we've been had so far this morning, has really centered, um on the ways in which new technologies. Have impacted, workers, uh in the united states, with references, at various points in time. Um to experience. Outside of the u.s context. The goal of this panel is to really think about, how the work of the future is emerging in different countries. And what the major, themes, concerns. Are that we see, popping up in different jurisdictions. And then finally and crucially. How institutions. And policies. That are being put in place. As well as strategies, that firms are adopting. Are addressing. These issues. Around the world. To help me discuss these issues. We have three excellent, panelists i'm very excited, um first we have vlogma, denner, who's chairman of the board, um. At robert bosch gmbh. Um bosch of course a leading. Manufacturing. Firm, in germany. We have yesheng, huang, a professor, of global economics, and management. At mit, sloan, my colleague, across campus. And we have indra nui, um who is former chair and ceo of pepsico. And so we have an excellent. Group. Of panelists. And to really help us think through these issues, uh so i'm really excited for us to to dive right in. So my first question, um, goes, um. To voltmar. Uh fortmo, our societies, are facing a range of challenges. Wage and wealth inequality. And xenophobia. And systemic, racism. Climate, change and of course most recently. The kovit 19, pandemic. All of these issues, have, pointed, to. A number of social inequalities. In our societies. Within the context of thinking about the emergence, of ai. And advanced, automation. What challenges, do these new technologies, pose to society. And crucially, what types of technologies, do you think we should be developing. In order to have the type of society. That we want. Uh thanks a lot uh jason, uh, i'm. Honored, to be part of. This discussion. Of this panel. Well i think, uh in. In answering your questions. First of all we have to look at the challenges, that, uh societies. Face. And. I think technology. And innovation, always, uh has to be the tool the method, to improve, uh, or to answer, these challenges. And for me there is one summary, saying that technology, always, should serve human beings and societies. And not vice versa. And. Regarding, the. Constraints. That we, that we face both. In leading a company, as as a ceo. Or, being part of a society. For me is always, the same. For me it's, balancing. What i call a triangle. And this triangle, consists, of economical. Ecological. And social aspects. And the difficult part is how to, keep this triangle, in, balance. Just to give you an example. Bosch was the first company, a couple of years ago to develop, a collaborative. Robot, for manufacturing. So a robot with a, sensor skin, preventing. Uh that it hurts human beings so it was allowed and officially, released. To be able to work, among human beings in a manufacturing. Life. Now when you design, such a robot. Uh you can go. To basic, path i would say first of all, you can get go a very aggressive, path and saying, uh the robot, finally, could replace. Human workers. The path we chose was completely, different, our. Setup, and also the target for the engineers, was. That your target is to make human beings, human workers, in the line even more valuable. And i'm, really proud that this worked out because, when i visited, one of our factories. Where. This robot this robot has to be had to be removed. For maintenance, reasons. The worker. Asked his colleague. His human colleague, where is my colleague, and he made the robot. And this for me, showed that the concept. Worked, of course, there will be some. Tasks in the manufacturing. Line that. Will be obsolete.
By Using a robot. But what i wanted to bring over it's. If you if you design the concept, in such a way. My experience, is we will find. A balance, between, the economical. Aspect, introducing, automation. And also the social aspects, keeping workers. In, in work. And not replacing, them. Thank you so much fault martin this is such a crucial perspective, for us to have because. Much of the issue of the emergence, of ai and advanced automation. Has been posed as a tension. Between either, going with. Robots, on one hand, or human workers, on the other and certainly one of the things, that. The task force report has sought to highlight, is precisely, this point that there is a middle road there are ways in which. New technologies. Can be developed. Um to. To complement. Human workers. Um and the example you just gave of work that you're doing at bosch um sort of fits with this perfectly, so so thanks very much. I'm turning to indra, and sort of building on this question, um of, the sort of challenges, that technology, poses to society. What constraints. Do ceos, face, uh when considering, the societal, implications. Of new technology, creation, and deployment. Um. Do ceos, have sort of free reign. To pursue. Approaches. That might, be societally, beneficial. Are there constraints. That, ceos, face in in their role, of heads as heads of their organization. Jason thanks for the question and, i thought the report, itself was brilliantly, written. I mean it's very detailed, it's got, a lot of substance, in it and now we have to act on it, let me frame your question slightly differently. You know ceos, run companies, that are embedded in society. If society, doesn't succeed, companies are not going to succeed. And so let's talk about. I mean in fact let me twist your question a bit and say. What type of a society, do we want. I mean the report has highlighted, several things one it said. That, inequality. Has become. Almost. Unmanageable, right now the.
Deviation, Between the rich and the, not so rich is the highest it's ever been, is that the kind of society we want. There's a comment which said that the american, dream, is, uh, fraying. Do we want the american, dream to fray at the edges, i don't think so. Um. Do we just keep recommending. Things and these recommendations, have come about for the last decade, or so, without doing anything about it. Governments cannot do everything themselves. Governments, have got other problems. So companies, have to come together with governments and societies, and communities. And address, all of them together. So i think that. Technological. Progress, is going to continue, i don't think you can put. A straight jacket on that and say stop don't grow. Because that's competitive. That's going to keep growing. At the same time i think we've got to have a very clear idea of, what kind of a society, do we want. And make sure we put in place, all the building blocks to make sure, that while this technology, progresses. We are focused, maniacally, on making sure society is not left behind, defined, as, a large portion of society, today, which feels disenfranchised. Because, they either don't have the educational, skills. They don't have access, to the education. Or they don't have mobility. To really go after the jobs that they want. So i think this requires. A major reading. That cannot, happen. Just by governments. It's for the first time i think, we have to take the stakeholder, theory a bit seriously. And say, companies. And governments, have to sit down and have a dialogue, about. What's the future for the worker. When you, go off and hire a highly. You know, highly, technologically. Uh savvy worker. What happens to the worker that's left behind. What's the retraining, program what's a relocation. Program. We have to start talking about this holistically. If we don't i think we're going to exacerbate. This division, in society. And i don't think that's a society any of us want. Thanks very much andrew and especially, thank you for, highlighting, this point about. Taking a stakeholder. Approach. As distinct, from. The shareholder, value perhaps. Approach this is something that, we heard earlier. In, my colleague david author's, discussion. With satya nadella, as well, and resetti, is really pointing to this, importance, of thinking about a multi-stakeholder. Approach, it's really nice to hear, um this coming from uh more than one. Head, a business leader. Um yesheng, um. Many one of the things that we've noted, um is that major technological. Breakthroughs. Um so ai advanced automation, and so forth, are raising a host of concerns. Um these include privacy. Trust, transparency. Global competition. I'd love to get your thoughts on how you see these issues being addressed in different places in particular. In china, europe and the united states. Yeah thank you, jason, for, uh for excellent. Questions. I think we are. In the unprecedented. Era, of. Technology. Developments. But also. Institutional. And. Social. Environments. Under which. Technology. Develops. Right so if you think back. Really this is the first time, since the industrial, revolution. That potentially. Breakthrough. Technologies. Can happen. In societies. That do not share. Western, norms. And western, values. On a whole range of things. Definitely, on politics. But also, on. Social. Protection. Um, privacy. Right so, the closest, parallel, i can think of, was. Soviet union. But soviet union was advancing. Physics. And math. And those. Breakthroughs. Didn't really affect. It increased, the. Military. Capabilities. Of the soviet union. But it really didn't affect, the lifestyle. Of, americans. Or western, european. Countries. Other than through. Military. And, defense, right so. Soviet union didn't have. The soviet, equivalent, of tick-tock. Which is a, a, app used, by. Over 100, million. Americans. Developed. By, a, chinese company. So. It is. It is really for the first time, and. I i don't know. What we should do about that, trump's, response, is to stop china. Which i don't think is the, is the right uh. Policy. Uh, a choice. But this is something we ought to think about, right um. Driverless. Cars. Uh, there are, many many constraints. On. Driverless, cars. In the united, states not just. Uh, software. And, engineering. But also.
Sensor. Embedded, infrastructure. Because, driverless, cars, require. A. Sensor, embedded, environment. China is moving, ahead. Rather substantially. In building. Sensor, embedded. Infrastructure. Smart, cities. Right so it's not just. A, behavior, data, facial recognition. But also traffic, data. Infrastructure, data. So, you know i'm not making a prediction, but, the possibility. Is. That china, may come up with, the next, generation. Of. Driverless, cars. And so we can't think about these things. In isolation. Of. What's happening, in other societies. I'm more familiar with china than with other countries. In public of china is more advanced, in this you know, things can happen in india things can happen, in. In brazil. So we need to have a more holistic. View. Maybe, we don't get to make. Choices, on our own. Maybe we will be given. A. Product. Age boys. Then what do we do so i'm posing this question, for. For us to think about. Uh thanks very much shane i wonder if i might just um pick up on this question and turn it to to vote more and sort of get your. Perspective. Um. Or, maybe more broadly the perspective. On these, questions, of china and competition. Are from germany, um a lot of i think the discourse, in sort of the global business has been this kind of u.s, china, sort of tension but of course. It would be really insightful, to get a sense. Of how. These things have been considered. These questions of technology. And competition. In germany especially given germany's. Manufacturing. Global manufacturing, dominance. Of course. The. Rising, tensions between the us and china, is a big concern. To us in, europe and and, in germany, and maybe we can discuss a little bit on this uh. Later on. But maybe i can, start with uh one aspect. That yoshang also mentioned briefly, regarding. Ai. And and what our approach is. And i think it's a little bit typical, at least for. For the company. That i'm responsible. For and a little bit maybe also how we. View things in europe. Because. Uh. In our, journey. Using. Ai, for industrial, products. We very soon, gave us, a code of ethics. And bosch is also part of the european, community, activities. To formulate, such a code of ethics, for ai. In fact we, also. Applying, some of the principles. That are discussed, in europe. In a pilot phase. And i think this is the way, how we shape, this new technology. So for example. We say that. First of all. The. Human being, always, has to be the last. Instance so to say, that you can address to. Ai. Has to be safe robust, and. Trustworthy. These are principles. That. We. Obey, also in in developing. Our products. Just to give you uh one example, and. That also addresses what. Mentioned regarding. Automated, vehicles where, of course bosch is also. Heavily, active. In, in. Europe. We have the. Opinion. That, in in. A dilemma, situation. Where, an automated, car has, based on ai has to make a decision, without a human, intervention. It's not, allowed. That you make any, kind of assessment. Of the life of a human being. So there is no possibility. For a software, engineer to assess. The. The work the the value let's say of. The life of a child versus an uh elderly, person, it's simply not allowed, this is one ethical principle, for example. That you can use in solving these, dilemma, situations, and hand it over basically. To society, and say what's the appropriate. System reaction, of an, automated, car, in such a situation, it's not up to the engineer. And therefore, i think, this. Concept. To. Think about the impacts of technology. Very early, and start. A discussion, in society. What do we really want and what has to be excluded. Uh i think, is. A big advantage. That we have in in democratic, societies. That, we, should use and must. Use. Thanks for watching. And thanks for the example i mean so, the the question of you know the valuation, of, life, um, in the programming. Of. Um, autonomous, vehicles, um is crucial i mean this is the trolley problem which you know many people often pose and. And that's the way it's really been thought about in in the us you know this is a as a, in many discussions, many ethical discussions, or ethics discussions, there's a real trade-off, that one has to think about, um, and so it's really nice to get this perspective, from germany where that really puts it, to the to the side, i'm so sort of staying turning to um intra and sort of staying at the societal, level, i mean i'd love to get your thoughts on on the following, um.
We've, Seen how capitalism, varies, across countries. Um in the institutions. I mean as the noted for example, in some of the values that it holds. Um. We were wondering you know, you know given the fact that we're seeing. New technologies, emerging, um in in many different contexts. What kinds of reforms, do you think are necessary, in order for us to promote the best of capitalism. That is the kind of technological, innovations. Um and creativity. That capitalism. Facilitates. While constraining. Its most troubling features, and in particular. Income inequality. Jason i tell you i don't think we should constrain. Technological. Progress, because it is a competitive, advantage, of nations, and i think. We have to let innovation. Thrive, we have to let technology, proceed. At best what we can do is anticipate. The negative, consequences. Of technology, whether it's data privacy. Or, whether it does some things to. Foster. You know, trouble in societies, we can anticipate, those and put in some checks and balances. But beyond that i don't think you can really constrain. Technology. Because if you constrain it in the u.s some other country is going to win, so you're going to have to keep this race going. But what we can address. Is the negative, effects of technology. But then it starts with this idea of what kind of society, we want. We cannot, let everything. Fall to. Companies. And companies, cannot punt everything to governments, it just can't happen, so i think there's got to be a real discussion, on. What kind of a society, we want, see the problem is in the past there's always, been, technology. Changes. But for many many decades, we had, shifts within mechanical, industries, so the workers, could move from industry to industry. Then when the first change happened and started to go into the electronics, world, you saw the first displacement. And then now that it's coming to, artificial, intelligence. More software, driven, you're beginning to see a lot more, displacement. And workers who cannot be retrained. For the new world. At the same time there are lots of jobs that are available. But the workers, don't want to do it because it's in a completely, different area. Then they're used to working for example, there's a lot of caregiving, jobs, but you can't re-troll, a factory worker to be a, caregiver. So i think we have to sit down and think about. The future of technology, and the future of societies, together. So if people are going to be displaced. What are we going to do with them, how many of them can be retrained. How many cannot be retrained in which case. What kind of a life do we want them to have, how are we going to handle them, i think it requires, a really, careful, discussion, on.
How Do we make sure we don't leave a big swath of society. On the side, i'll tell you one thing when pepsico, and we were doing productivity, programs. There was one, of the waves of productivity, where workers, got displaced. We set up a retraining. Fund. And said, let's make sure that the workers, are being displaced. Can, access this retraining, fund. But what we did not anticipate. Is it's not just enough to set up a retraining, fund we've got to ask ourselves. What jobs are we retraining. For the money is not enough we have to direct the people. But then are people. Educated, in high school or in college. With enough. Core skills, to even go through the retraining, that's the first part, the point is mobility. You know when you have, working, couples. Or people who don't have much equity in their homes because the value of real estate has come down in manufacturing. Towns. How can they up and move to a new town. So i think we have to think about this as a systems, problem. And really start with. Do we really, have a feeling that we're going to improve. The structure of society. From where it is today, we should stop talking about averages, we should talk about, disaggregating. The very wealthy, and their incomes. And the, working class and their incomes and say look. This kind of dichotomy. And income levels cannot continue. If we start with that great consciousness. I think we'll come to a very different answer jason. Great thank you so much indra, um, so going to a question that's come in um from our audience, um and you're sharing i think maybe i'll i'll put this one to you. Um the question is the following from joel bell. New technologies, seem prone to markets, as well as political, power. Antitrust. Has ambivalent, support, i'm assuming they mean anti-trust. Some monopoly, policy. Or anti-monopoly, policy in the united states has ambivalent, support. Regulation, is not trusted, how can we address, this. So. Aside, from these. Technological. Issues we're discussing. An additional, challenge. For. Our society. Is the deep, political, divide. That that we are seeing, in. In the past four years in the recent election. Anti-trust. There is. A. Divide. Between the two political, parties. Among, different, stakeholders. About the economic. And the political, rationale. Of, pursuing. Anti-trust. Policies. It is very interesting. If you look at the, sort of. Intellectual. Underpinnings. Of, extreme. Right-wing. Economic, and political, ideas. In this country, there is a battle. And, between these two ideas. And one party, represents. The extreme version, of, the right-wing. Authoritarian. Ideology. And the other party, i think represents, a modern. Version, of, the middle of the ground, views. It is interesting, if you expand. This kind of intellectual. Horizon. To, countries, other than united states. You notice the following. The most, extreme. Right-wing. Intellectual. Ideas. Tend to come from, former. Countries. Many chinese, intellectuals. Have. A dire, hard. Right-wing. Ideas, about economics. About politics. They will dismiss, the whole discussion, we're having now about ethics. And. Optimization. Of. The value of human being to them this is a no-brainer, why. Why are you talking about these things, of course. The value of poor persons. And the value of a young person, is bigger than the value of a old person. Of one person. To them this is taken for granted. Uh if you, look at the eastern european, countries, poland. Mongolia. Czech republic. Have very very powerful. Uh right-wing. Uh, laser, fair. Supporters. Uh, east germany. Uh, uh uh has. Many many conservative. Politicians. And so so we need to pay attention, to that, the debate, that we're having now. Is no longer, confined. To, the campuses. Of mit. Harvard. Or stanford. It is a global, debate. Right. Anti-trust. Policies. In, in, in china in asia. It is going to be. Affected. By, the, intellectual. Trend. You may see that the the. The. Downfall, of the right-wing, ideology, in this country hopefully. But you're going to see, a rise, of the same ideology. Elsewhere. And that has. Implications. Not just for anti-trust. But for really. Human centered. Technological.
Development. You know, in many many conferences. And discussions, i have had. In china, about, the ai. There's, almost, no. Attention. To the issues, we are talking about. Human, human, cost. Displacement. Human centered. Ai, very very. Few discussions. Only very recently, some, ai companies, in china. Are talking about this but mostly as a pr, issue rather than something that that is, there to their heart. Thank you shane i wonder. No um. And moral judgment, i i'm just pointing out a fact i'm not saying that's bad or that's good i'm just saying that as a matter of fact, that's what i have, absolutely. No the thanks and thanks for the qualifier as well simply because it, helps to me to put the question also to the injury to voltmar, which is that, you know what do you um, observe. In in other countries. And again both of you have huge experience. In doing business. In many many different country contexts, how do you see some of the issues that you're sharing just described. Um playing out in different places. Well let's. Go ahead. Well i only can. Support, fully. What. India what you said earlier. For me it's all centered about, the inequality. Of societies. We want to accept. Or, how, we move things into a certain direction. And. If you look at what has happened, in the world we see clearly, countries, that are leading in technology, like the u.s. But still, and that's, possible. Demonstrated, very clearly. In the mit, report. Had a, huge rise in inequality. And yashan, also, pointed to some of the political, issues, uh in countries, where if you dig deeper, mostly, this is the. Cause for this uh, for the. Right-wing, parties for example. That people, think they have been left, behind. And, that the inequality. Has increased. Over the years. And that's something, i can only fully support, from the bottom of my heart we have to care about this, not ignore, it. And in a way jason i think covet has exacerbated, the issue. Because. You know people, who. Were our. Frontline, workers, who we rebranded, essential, workers.
Kept The economy, going. But you know we're not really doing anything extra for them. Uh, and they're the people, that. Didn't have access to great education. Didn't have broadband, access. Many of those families didn't have, you know devices. In order to have remote education. They don't have role models to teach them, so in many ways covert has exacerbated. All these, societal, divides. So i think more so than ever we need to have this discussion, and dialogue, now. Now let me tell you what i'm observing, in many countries. Many countries are beginning to talk about the fact that, corporations. Have to step up, you've got to have a stakeholder. Approach, you can't simply, pass costs onto society. We're not asking, companies, to become governments. All that we're saying is we want you to create jobs we want you to grow, but don't pass, costs on society. That's really what we're saying, and so, when you many, countries, are now saying. Take a portion of your profits. And put it aside. For retraining, programs, or social programs. Many countries, are insisting on a stakeholder, theory. But i think right now it's all about, dollars. And sort of spreading it around, i think we need a very concerted. Piece of work to talk about. How are we going to address. This extreme. Inequality. That's resulted. Because of so many factors that's happened over the last two decades. But at some point we've got to stop and have the discussion. And do the right interventions. Do the right interventions. I mean you've laid some of them out in the report. But it's time to do something about it i mean i like the fact you talked about. Taking the workers seriously. Giving them the right support systems. The right. Uh you know. Minimum, wage, whatever benefits, you give them. Where we stand versus many of the other countries. I think it's time to start putting that all in focus and saying, why can't capitalism. And care for the workers, go together. Why is it one, or the other. I think that's a fool's choice and that's really the discussion, we're going to have to have, together. As corporations. And governments. Thanks very much indra so just let's continue with questions that are coming in um from our audience, um and one that i think follows on directly. Um on your comments, um coming from dylan terrell. Um how much responsibility. Falls on tech companies. Um or i would say companies more broadly, um though the, dylan framers in terms of tech companies. How much responsibilities. Responsibility. Falls on companies. That are replacing, jobs, also replace, those, jobs themselves. Versus expecting, the government or other firms to step. In. Andrew maybe i could ask you to to. Um if you have any thoughts to share that because i think it follows, on some of the, remarks, you're just making. Well you know uh. Tech companies in the tech companies, okay, i said on the board of a tech company, amazon, that's one of the largest, job creators, right now, one of the largest, job creators. Investing. So much capital expenditure, in the country to expand, build new distribution, centers but also hiring. And also treating workers, right you know with minimum, wage. Or 15. All the benefits, giving them opportunities, to get retrained. So i feel fortunate, to serve on the board of amazon. Other tech companies are growing but they're adding higher skill workers. And some of that might be causing job displacement. That's i think part of natural evolution. Again i come back jason. I don't think we should sit down and talk about. How to clip their wings. That's a very bad outcome, for, a nation, that's looking to be. The most innovative, the most inventive. And perhaps, you know the beacon of, innovation, and the future. You shouldn't clip the wings. I think we ought to have a different, conversation. About. What do we do with the displaced, population. I think that's a conversation. Which is, long overdue. It's not just because of the big fangs. It's long overdue, because for many many years. We have under-invested. In those societies. And i think it's time we had a discussion. About that, independent, of the technology, discussion. Great thank you so much, um valmar turning to you there's a question that came in um from the audience, um uh directly to that was directed towards you um from christina, fisher. The question is the following um earlier in the virtual meeting i'm not sure if you caught this part of the meeting earlier but earlier in the virtual, meeting one presenter, said that germany was not making, the most.
Of Technology, and i think um. Earlier. New technological, innovation, so, um, technologies. Um at the the frontier. In this economy, and so potentially, was falling behind. In these cutting-edge, technologies. Um so the question is do you agree, with that. Well um. Of course leading, leading a technology, company i cannot agree, uh, that's very clear, but i can also justify, i mean for example. The company i'm responsible, for bosch. Has about four, hundred thousand employees, and seventy thousand, of them are uh are. In our uh r d. Uh but if we. Uh, try to answer this question of course we have to, be more precise, and look at uh. The different technologies. In detail. Now for example. Let's take. Ai. Because we discussed, this, earlier. Our approach, is, what we call industrial, ai. Within. Bosch but also within, i would say europe. And industrial, ai means we combine, artificial, intelligence. With the domain knowledge, that we have in our products. And we are leading in this field. It's not. Some of the i.t tech companies, that are leading there. And. That's the way. How you can. Be in a leading position. Combining, your, traditional, strength that in this case come from the product side and combine, the new technologies. Um, so. I think definitely, it's possible. Of course. It's it's very clear that. The typical. I would say. European. And and maybe. Even more, german attitude, is a very self-critical. One. Which. On the one hand side is very good because, it, is some kind of protective, shield. But on the other hand it sometimes. Also, indicates. We are falling behind, so for example, regarding, electric mobility. If you look at the fact at the moment. Electric mobility. Is. Is, booming in germany. And, i make the prediction. Because. As a supplier, of course i'm not only serving. German. Oems, but also chinese, and. U.s. You will see a situation. Where. We will not fall back we will be in a leading position, regarding, electric mobility, i promise you. Although, everybody. Has been very critical. Regarding, this issue, uh are we falling, back behind, the the competition. Uh, i can only tell you we are, the the largest provider, of electric mobility, components, in our field in china. Which is the largest market. For electric vehicles. Great great thank you so much um, so, building um on on this point and also kind of harkening. Back to the the previous, panel which focused on skills, with another question that came in, um from, from our audience, and the question is the following. It was said today. Earlier that there's a war for talent. Isn't it true that globally. Is that true globally, and how does. That worsen, the demographic. Disparities. Um, in different countries, uh so think about things like brain drain for example. Um baltimore maybe i could ask you to, if you have any thoughts on that, what extent do we see um. A global, warfare. Um. And how might that be shifting. Um. Uh. Sort of, what sort of implications, might that have for the movement of talent, across borders. Well first of all. I'm of the opinion, that. The situation. With respect, to. People, applying, for a job and companies. Has, undergone, a fundamental, change, already. Many years ago. Not across the board but in, in some areas, already. Long ago that's maybe. Why, i. Changed our philosophy. Uh already a couple of years ago saying, that, it's not the people that apply for a job at bosch, it's, posh that applies, at those people. Because i was educated, or grew up in microelectronics. And, even, a. Long time ago, it was exactly, this.
Situation. If you have if you are looking for, experienced, ac designers, for example. And this has of course. Been a strong trend, if you look at. People. That are capable, in ai, or in software, and so on, so that's clearly. Something. That where companies, have to, change their attitude. And if you do these, changes, of course then you have to look. For talents, uh not only, uh, when you are active. But very often you have to go where the talents, are that's why for example, we opened up uh, development, centers. At hot spots, where the best, capable, people. Are. Decades, ago this would have been impossible. People would have to move to the location of our company, that is long over. Um uh intro one if you have any thoughts on this, um. No i agree with the comments made because i think. There is a shortage. Of talent, in advanced, technologies. Any which discipline, you look at. You know there's a finite number of people who are graduating, from. Universities, with the right. Educational, qualifications. And everybody, is going after them, and at some point you have to stop poaching, for the same people, we're just going to run out of. Circles. And so. I think we're going to have to do. Two things one. Educate, more people, on the technologies, for the future i mean for example. All of the new, bio. Life sciences, technologies. We need a whole new caliber of people. Trained in a different way which means we've got to go back and rethink. High school, middle school education, all the way through. College, and later. Because. If you want, people who know, gene editing and all that stuff. You can't just, sort of flick your, fingers and they don't show up you need to build the pipeline, you need to build the teachers. You need to have the right educational. Tools available, to them so. I think that. Brain drains, are happening, in some countries. Uh many western, countries are going and locating, where a lot of the talent is which is great. Because it, avoids the immigration, issues that are so. Much on the front burner. But there's no question that we have an acute, shortage of talent i was looking at the numbers, even in the united states. They said there are 700. 000 job openings, right now. Of which. Almost 40 percent, is for, technical, talent. That's a lot of people. Okay. And so, the only other plug i'd put in here not even it's not even a plug and observation, json is that. You know 70, of our high school valedictorians. Are women. I think 45. Of mit's, engineers, are women. 65, percent of. Highest, performing. Graduates, are women. Yet women are not in the workforce, in large numbers, because of all kinds of other barriers. So if you're really short of people in our workforce. If we provide. Families, and women in particular, the appropriate. Support systems. Many of these high performing, people can be brought into the workforce. I don't think we have a choice. Absolutely no thank you very much no that's absolutely right um and i think especially highlighting. Um the sort of changing gender composition, of talent, is hugely important for us to consider. So we are um, we just have about a minute or so left so i just want to ask one final question, um. Uh and just ask you for a quick 30 second, response, um to save the most fun question for last. Um. Given sort of taking a step back, to our discussion, of the interaction, of global politics, with the global economy. Of course we see, a new, administration. Coming in um. In the united, states. I just want to ask, each of you. What advice would you give to the the new biden administration. On these issues of technology, jobs especially from a global perspective. Um maybe, you're saying they can ask you to start first. Um waltmar the ninja will give you the last word. Yeah thank you jason, uh, actually, one. Has to do with a global. Talent. Issue. The united states. The way that united states. Develops. Is science, and technology. Is because, of global. Flow of talents, into this country. And trump has, restricted. That flow. In the name of hurting china. Is actually hurting the united, states, uh it's also hurting china but it's also hurting. The, united states, so i'm working on a book that. Proposes. Four ways of looking at technology, development, in terms of four kinds of freedoms. Personal freedom. Exploration. Freedom. Funding, freedom. And application, freedom. If you look at these four freedoms.
United, States. Definitely, personal freedom, you know this is a democracy. Property, rights protection. Exploration. Freedom. The ability, to explore new topics, united, states is ahead. But in terms of funding freedom, in terms of application, freedom. China, arguably. Is. Is ahead of the united, states. So, essentially, if you are a talented. Engineer. You're looking, at, where, you, are going to do your best of the work in the next 10 years. The decision, is not as straightforward. As it was before. When the united states, invested, very heavily, in science and technology. When the companies, and universities, had a lot of money to invest, in. In science, right, china, is, increasing, its investment, china may attract, a lot of the talents. If we don't, uh, if we don't do things, uh don't do things right, so my first advice, to the, by the administration. Is yes definitely, pay attention, to national, security, issues, and things like that espionage. But to have a more complex. And nuanced, approach, toward. This, question about. Human, uh capital. And talents. Great thank you so much um voltmar, um just 30 seconds, from your thoughts your advice, to the body administration. Come back to, your strengths. Which were, an international. Global, i could say a collaboration. And identify. Your real friends. Awesome thank you very much uh intra, last video i'd say you know reinstitute. The office of technology, assessment. So that as technology, progresses. We sort of start to look at what the implications, for the technology, are so we can, figure out the appropriate, checks and balances, to put in place ahead of time. But you know encourage, technology, celebrate, it. Great thank you so very much um and thank you um to the three of you um, uh. Indra yasheng, and waltmar, for your thoughts on this panel and thanks very much to our participants. And looking forward to the next session thank you. Thank you jason. Thank. You.
2020-12-05