Ashley Putnam: Welcome to our first episode of Workforce Realigned, a special five-episode podcast series within the Economy Matters that explores how innovative finance is reshaping the future of work. Workforce Realigned is a production of the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Philadelphia
in partnership with Social Finance. My name is Ashley Putnam. I direct the economic growth and mobility project at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and I'm happy to be your host.
Let's set the stage for why we are here today. We know that work is fundamentally changing, and we need to reinvent and rethink how we finance worker training and education to create a more inclusive economy. Today, I'm excited to speak with two of my colleagues from the Federal Reserve, Neel Kashkari, the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and Raphael Bostic, the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. So, now we know that despite increasing rates of higher education following the Great Recession, economic mobility has stalled. So Neel, I'd like to turn it over for you. Why do you think economic mobility has stagnated?
Neel Kashkari: The reason that economic mobility is stagnated, is there a number of factors that seem to be adding on to each other. And one is, there are huge education disparities in our society. And we know in our economy, education is only becoming more and more important for people to have the skills to contribute to get a good job. Education stagnation is a piece of this, and not just K through 12 and early childhood education, though there are barriers, there are disparities there. But accessing higher education, it's becoming more and more expensive. It's becoming more out of reach for many families. That's our tool to close gaps. That's our tool to break the cycle of poverty. So that's a big piece of it. And then you have other areas. You've got housing disparities, right, that these multiply on. And when home prices become more out of reach, then it becomes more difficult for families to have choices, more difficult for families to get their kids in good schools. So unfortunately, this is a multidimensional problem where all of these factors, in my judgment, seem to be contributing to expanding inequality, to increasing barriers, to making it harder for families to climb the ladder. And so, it's a multifaceted problem and it's only becoming harder, unfortunately.
Putnam: Absolutely. Raphael, I'd love to turn it over to you. Thinking about the work that the Atlanta Fed has led around workforce [development], as look at these issues that Neel just mentioned, what do you see? What trends are you seeing around economic mobility? And why are you seeing concerns about that stagnation and economic mobility?
Raphael Bostic: This is such an important topic. Our Bank has been working on this for a long, long time, a long before I got here, mainly because economic mobility is the pathway toward productivity, production, and being self-sustained. And if we don't have that, then the economic potential of the broader economy is limited and constrained. So, we have a tremendous interest in seeing progress made in this regard. I'm pleased to say our Bank has developed a number of initiatives on this. Perhaps the most significant is our Center on Workforce and Economic Opportunity, which has really been looking at ways that we might create a workforce development infrastructure that allows families, individuals, and anyone who wants to, to get skills that allow them to be competitive for the jobs of tomorrow. In listening to Neel talk about the role of education and getting human capital to be able to work, and that the disparities are a big challenge, another challenge in that regard is just the evolution of the economy and the structural change that is making some types of skills far less in demand, and others far more in demand. And what's been interesting about this period, I think, is that the new skills aren't actually close to the old skills. And because of that, when you lose a job because of the structural changes going on in the economy, it's not so easy for you to just flip into the new one that's come up, in the way that it was in the 1800s when we went through that first Industrial Revolution. And so what that means is that we've got to have actually a more muscular, a mature, and a functional workforce development infrastructure to facilitate those sort of transitions. We spend a lot of time here at our Bank, and the System is talking a lot about ways that we might make progress there.
Putnam: Wonderful. Thank you. Yes. Love to say we are continuing to have these conversations at the Fed around the dual mandate and our conversations about maximum employment, right? And this is something we've been talking about a lot more this year in the middle of the crisis that we're in. And something I think we've been talking about even over the past two or three years since the project on investing in America's workforce, and now this work really thinking about realigning and refocusing in the workforce development system. And so, Neel, I'd love to hear your perspective on this dual mandate we're carrying out around maximum employment. And what role do you see the workforce development system, particularly training organizations, community college, what role are they playing in training and preparing the next generation?
Kashkari: The role of workforce development, community colleges in preparing the next generation, they have a critical role, but it's interesting, because it's actually really related to our monetary policy work and our dual mandate and maximum employment. One of the things I've observed, there have been many, many, many worker retraining programs over time around the country. And boy, is it hard. Let's just be honest. It is really hard to say to a construction worker, "We're going to retrain you, and you're going to become a computer programmer," or "You're going to become a nurse." Right? Very difficult. But it is infinitely harder if you have a lot of unemployment in the broader economy when you're doing that. It turns out that the context of the labor market is enormously important in how successful these worker investment programs are going to be. So one of the things that we saw in the last expansion in 2018, 2019, before the pandemic hit, as the labor market tightened, you started seeing businesses who were complaining that they can't find workers, historic worker shortages, they started doing extraordinary things. They started investing in training workers themselves. They started saying, "You know what? I don't need to do the drug test for this certain type of job anymore." And they started themselves reducing the barriers to bringing workers into the labor market.
I'll tell you the best worker retraining program possible is one that a company does itself to say, "You know what? I've got this equipment. I will teach you how to use this machine because we've got customers, we've got products. We need skilled labor to run this machine. We'll invest in you." So to me, worker retraining is a much more achievable thing to do if we otherwise have a strong economy, a strong context. Right now we have the middle of this pandemic. We have very high unemployment. It's a harder thing to get done right now. It becomes a little bit easier when the economy heals, and you've got businesses saying, "Give me the workers, give me the workers. We will partner with you to help develop their skills." So I actually think the context, and that's why our maximum employment mandate, that's why the Fed, we have a role, not only in our specific research that we do in workforce development. We have a role in trying to promote a strong economy and a strong labor market, so that these workforce development programs have a better chance of being successful.
Putnam: Absolutely. Well said, Neel. Raphael, we've been talking a lot about the workforce development system and the needs for the changes in that system. From your work, where do you see the financial innovations fitting in for the needs for that change? Do you have some insights on some things that are working well that we should be amplifying and doing more of?
Bostic: Well, in thinking about what the future might look like and where innovation fits in, I actually want to say the same thing that Neel said, which is, this is hard. And I actually wrote those words down. I was thinking about this talk and started making some notes. This is just a really hard thing. There are so many dimensions around this that are challenging. One is that these programs, the local context is different in every community, so the type of conversation you've got to have with employers about what retraining looks like is going to be different. The types of community colleges and other institutions around to support are also going to be different. Your strategic design has got to be so varied across the various locations where we want this to work.
If we're going to see innovation, if we're going to see success happen, there's got to be tremendous coordination between employers, between community colleges and the service delivery, the training delivery infrastructure and the community, because the existing workers and even those who may not be tied to a company, they're going to need to know what jobs are out there. They're going to need to have an idea about what's possible and actually have a belief that if they participate in a program, the possible will happen. And that's going to require a lot of communication, a lot of coordination, a lot of effort to make that work.
So if you're going to see success in this regard, you've got to make sure that each of those elements is resourced. And this is where the financing comes in. You've got to have resources available to make sure that a delivery system, whether it be a community college or some other organization, can buy the equipment that allows them to run an effective training program. You've got to have resources so that there are our boots on the ground in communities, talking to people who don't have jobs and drumming up the interest in participating in these programs. And we do a fair amount of work on the information side, which I think is important. But there's so much more that needs to happen. And we need to be much more creative in how we get the facts known about where there are real opportunities. I think this is really important. And there's one other thing that I would call out, that I think I'd love to hear your thoughts, Neel, on this, but really around paying for success. And how do we reserve some funds so that there can be an outcome-based compensation scheme? So many of our public programs, you're paid on the throughput, not on the output. So as the number of people who you get in, that's kind of what you get paid for. And we don't really reserve funds or tie payment to what outcomes look like. Part of that is like how federal budgeting happens. And that's a whole other story, but we've got to figure that out. I think this is a conversation that is really worth having.
Kashkari: Well, I completely agree, Raphael. I think there should be a lot of experimentation on to see what works and what is effective. Some people will push back and say, "Well, you're going to pay businesses that were already going to do this anyway." And so you have to design it carefully, and examine it, and see if you're creating the incentives you want. I travel around my district, as I know you do, and I visit with a lot of community colleges. And I'll always ask them questions about their various programs. So one community college I visited, the president of the college was giving me a tour. And I pulled her aside and I said, "Hey, you need to train more welders. Why aren't you training more welders? Everybody complains that they can't find welders." And she says, "We tried. We invested all this money. We doubled our lab space. We hired more teachers. And we couldn't get any more students. They don't want to be welders." So my takeaway from that is, wages for welders need to go up. Because welding is actually a hard job. It's a physically demanding job. And if wages go up, you're going to attract more people.
Another quick anecdote, I visited another community college. I said the same thing to another college president about nursing. I said, "We need more nurses in Minnesota. What's the matter with you? Why don't you produce more nurses?" And he said, "We would love to, but the problem is, we lose money in every nurse that we train. So we have to subsidize our nursing program with our other programs." And I said, "Well, why don't you vary the tuition so that nursing can cover itself?" He said, "The state legislature won't let us. We have to charge the same tuition, roughly, no matter what the degree is." And so, as I dug into it, these are really complicated issues. Shining a light on these issues, creating the financial incentives, putting the resources to break through these barriers, I just think we've got to do it.
Putnam: We have a system that pays for outputs, but not outcomes. So you get paid for attending a class, but not necessarily for attaching that person to a job. Or for the hours a person is enrolled in a training program and not necessarily whether or not they're able to gain a wage or actually get employment. So when we start to think about that—paying for outcomes, paying for success, better aligning incentives—how do you coordinate a system when the funding mechanisms are set up so that they discourage coordination? We have really distinct, siloed funding systems in workforce and in education. And I'm curious, as you visited around your district, or looked at your work, have you seen any really powerful examples of outcomes-based funding? And what is your thought on that incentive alignment? And maybe I'll start with Rafael on this one.
Bostic: So when I think about, how do you do outcome-based funding right, this is another one where I think it's really hard. And this really came to me before I took this job. I was a professor at the University of Southern California and ran a governance center. And we talked about homelessness as an example. And it turns out that the best way to deal with homelessness is to have people not be homeless at all, which means you got to get them housing upfront, which means you should want to use housing money to build the housing, to put the homeless people in it. But the housing money, and the savings in healthcare that come from people not being homeless, are in two different budget pots. And if housing people spent their resources on homelessness, the savings go into healthcare and none of it comes back to the housing people. So the housing people have no incentive to continue to do that. And the governance issue came because—if you're like the city of San Francisco, which is a city and a county—the housing money and the health money is all in the same budget. But if you're in a county, they're actually two separate budgets. And the people making decisions, can't see across to understand that they’re not better. And I think we have the same issues here in the workforce development space. The trainers get paid because they teach people. The employers get a benefit when they have people who have the skills, so the benefits are accrued to bodies that are not making the initial investments. We've got to rethink and restructure what these things look like. And to me, that means we have to create explicit partnerships upfront. And so, one of the things that we've done in our Bank is establish a partnership with a number of bodies that we call the Rework America Alliance, where we're trying to bring together employers, and educators, and community-based organizations so that everyone invests up front, so that everyone acknowledges the savings on the backside, and the incentives are aligned. That's the type of creative and innovative financing structure that I think we definitely need to do more of. They're complicated, though. And it requires a different kind of mindset, a more collective mindset, that sometimes does not get as much airtime, but I think as is the one that's really going to get us to success in this regard.
Putnam: Absolutely. Absolutely. And Neel, part of this conversation has also been, as you guys were discussing, the costs of education, that cost to a student of going back and getting a four-year degree, and the rising costs. And there's been some conversation about income-share agreements and other structures. And I'm curious, how do you think about, in lining those incentives in higher ed or in training, so that they are meeting students where they are, but also benefiting our economy as a whole?
Kashkari: Well, the cost of education and what we do about it is a really important issue because, as I said earlier, the importance of education is only increasing over time as our economy becomes more knowledge-based. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way of educating the vast majority of our people, increasingly educating them. And it can't simply be saddling them with more and more debt. That is not a sustainable model. So one of the hopeful signs from this terrible pandemic is, we're all embracing technology much more aggressively because we have to. And let me just say, I don't think putting a seven-year-old in front of Zoom for eight hours a day works. I don't think anybody thinks that works. But I do think universities and colleges are deploying technology, by and large pretty successfully, not for every class and not for every student. But I think through technology, we may find much more scalable models of providing the education that millions of American young people, and people who want to continue to invest in them themselves, are going to need. So it's going to have to be scalable. And it cannot simply be, let's do the same old thing, try to jam more students through the same system, have costs go up, and have their debt go up. That's not a sustainable model for the students themselves, or for the economy as a whole. And that means we have to embrace new models of learning, new models of delivery. And we're going to have to challenge some of the basic assumptions we've made about how we approach education. And that's going to be uncomfortable for some people, but that's what we're going to have to do as a society.
Bostic: And Neel, I totally agree with that. And one thing that has really been present in my mind is the current period that we're in, in this pandemic, where we're starting to see schools have to experiment with different approaches to teaching their students. And my hope is that coming out of this, we will learn how to leverage the technology in a way that's effective, that can reduce some costs, while at the same time, not necessarily fully sacrificing some of the benefits you get by having people come together in classrooms. So we're very much in a laboratory period, and have been for the last year, better part of a year. And my hope is that there will be an emergence out of this of a set of new best practices about how you take the most advantage of the experiences that we've learned through this crisis and can apply them more broadly. Your last point on scale is exactly right. Ultimately this has got to be something that touches every child in America so that all of them see their potential grow and their exposure to possibility expand.
Putnam: Neel, I'd love to pivot there and say, we are in a critical time as we're talking about realigning workforce. We are looking at massive amounts of job losses, and our economy fundamentally shifting as a result of this downturn and this pandemic. And I'm wondering if you can speak to the gaps that you have seen, particularly around the labor market, and any ideas again for that innovation, that realignment, that Rafael just mentioned?
Kashkari: Well, we know that this pandemic has been terribly unfair, right? Those of us who are generally in white-collar jobs, working in an office building, we can keep doing our work remotely just as we're doing today. And so it tends to be the lower-income workers who are disproportionately affected by this. They tend to have lower skills and by the way, by the fact that they have to go to work in person, they're also putting themselves at health risk. So this pandemic is unfair on multiple dimensions. And the jobs, the restaurant jobs, flight attendant jobs, the other in-person service jobs, are they all coming back? Are some of them coming back? What's going to happen to the folks for whom those jobs do not come back? And so there's going to be a huge need in assisting those workers, those fellow citizens to migrate into other different parts of the economy. And what are the new parts of the economy that they should be moving into? I don't know right now. I mean, it's very hard to know in advance where the demand is going to be six months from now or a year or two from now. And so, the systems that Raphael was talking about, they need to be aligned and they also need to be flexible to be able to respond. And it's going to be very localized. Like I visited some areas in my district where there's a great partnership between the community college and local business and civic leaders. And they have formally built a pipeline directly into the workforce that seems to work very well when that alignment is there. That that doesn't happen everywhere. And so, I think we need to encourage more of that alignment between local businesses and local colleges and local high schools as well.
Bostic: Those alignments actually don't occur everywhere, but then they don't...even in places where they do occur, sometimes it doesn't sustain because it's about personal relationships. It's facilitated by personal relationships and isn't effectively institutionalized. And so, one of the things that I've seen in my career is that there are lots of interesting things that go on where they seem very promising, but then an administration changes at a city level or at a state level or a leadership of a business changes and priorities are shifted. And this is another reason why finding ways to promote or develop some financial pathways or conduits that are largely independent of who's in office in a particular time and can sustain these promising initiatives is really important. That's potentially a role for philanthropy, but it's also a potential role for the private sector more broadly. Like chambers of commerce, which I think are starting to understand the interests here more broadly. And it's one reason why I'm really happy we're doing this type of series to get the word out on these issues and to have these thoughts and these concerns at the forefront of as many people's minds as possible.
Putnam: Absolutely. And the two of you have mentioned two really critical things to workforce financial innovations. One is scale, and one is sustaining. And I'm curious as we look to our recovery and you think about where we will be at the end of this year and in 2022 and in 2025. Where do you see these kinds of investments needing to be made so that we do sustain our labor market, even if there are other downturns and ups and downs? Are there innovative things you're seeing or ways that you think we should be reinvesting? Maybe I'll start with you, Raphael.
Bostic: When I think about what investments in a sustaining way mean, I really think it's about identifying some interesting practices and then finding institutions that are willing to support them to go all in. Clearly this is easiest at the federal level. So you take an initiative like a social impact partnerships to pay for results, which created a pool of funds to help state and local outcomes-funded research or efforts. Those sorts of things, where you're going to take up some money at the federal level, start some pilots that then allow us to see how experiments play out at different places. And then we can translate that into a commitment to dive full in with investments on those pilots that seem to work. Those seem, to me, to be exactly the type of things we need to do. And I think having much more and a broader conversation around this issue of outcome-based incentives for programs and for participants is exactly where we need to go. And for me, and I'm just going to say this—I to step back and say—one of the biggest issues we have in my mind on the workforce development front is that job training has not historically been a big priority in our public sector. U.S. investment in job training has shrunk considerably, more than 50 percent in the last 30 years, which actually puts us at an institutional disadvantage. I think one of the things that successes and pilots can do is allow us to change the narrative about the efficacy of investing in workforce development training programs. And that change in the narrative, I think will cause people to be, and policy, makers in particular, to be more open to deeper investments in this space, because this touches every community in America. We see these changes going on and we see workers feeling less connected and more concerned and more stressed. So we've got to create an awareness of that and couple that with approaches that can help make a difference.
Kashkari: I would add to what Raphael said and go back to our discussion of community colleges and what curriculum and what skills they're offering. It's actually very hard for a lot of colleges that I've met with to make changes. Because even if there's a booming new industry, let's say the medical device industry is booming in Minneapolis, and they want to shift more resources to expand offerings to feed that industry. Well, now they have a bunch of people who are teaching welding or teaching something else, maybe that's in less demand. And so there are a lot of institutional frictions in making that kind of pivot. And so given the fact that we don't know exactly what the economy is going to look like a year from now, let alone three years from now, the more we can build in flexibility to make such adjustments to be responsive to the needs of the local economy, I think the better we will be able to prepare students to take advantage when those opportunities present themselves.
Putnam: Absolutely. So I'm going to wrap today's conversation talking about something that the two of you have been just incredible leaders and the Federal Reserve System around. And that is in the light of this crisis and the disproportionate impact we have seen on workers of color, on black and brown communities. The two of you have been really involved in these conversations about race and the economy. And I'm curious as you think about the workforce system, how do you see the workforce system being able to build to help racial equity and how can we do it better? How have we not been doing it, and maybe we should be doing it in the future?
Kashkari: Well, I think the workforce system is a key, is a key component of breaking down barriers and achieving an economy and a society that's more equitable. And it's also better for our economy. I mean, again, prepandemic, how many firms, how many industry groups came to me and said, "Oh my gosh, we can't find workers." And then I would go into low-income communities, I would go into minority communities that had lots of workers available, and somehow we're not building those connections where they never thought, "well, I didn't realize black and brown people could work construction." I mean, it's just an absurd comment. I didn't realize that they could work in my roofing company or they could work in sheet metal, etc. And so part of it is opening eyes and saying, "it's actually in your own economic interest if you want to have the workforce that you need to support your business and to support growth. And it's also the right thing to do." So I think structurally there's a important role for us to play in building these pipelines, breaking down these barriers. It'll end up leading to a more equitable society, but also lead to a more vibrant economy that we can all participate in and we can also enjoy. So, I mean, I think the workforce development piece of this is a critical piece of this, and we have a lot of work yet to do.
Bostic: Well, as you said, Neel, the pandemic hasn't been fair. And it has definitely not been fair along racial dimensions. When you think about the health impact and the impact on minorities, small businesses, and the like, it's just been harder and worse. And so what that means is that an infrastructure that can be stable and secure and reliable in keeping African Americans and Latinos and others who have been less connected to the workforce historically, is essential. It actually becomes more important in these times of hyperstress. When I think about the labor market, there are two dynamics in the context of racial equity, there are two dynamics. One is that prepandemic, we even had these gaps, right? So that is not like this is an all of a sudden issue where minorities have had no issues and no challenges and there was full equity before. That was actually not true. And the pandemic has made this worse, which to me says, this is an opportunity for us to lean in even more heavily on our infrastructure. Through my career, I've heard many people say, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." Well, this is one of those. We actually have a pretty significant crisis that is, we had one before and it's actually worse now. This may be an opportunity for us to galvanize some resources, to do some really significant structural changes, such that we can leverage that infrastructure to start to make a difference on these gaps. I love listening to Neel talk about this stuff because he says things plainly and really. So going around the Sixth District hear a lot about the same thing, hear a lot. "I can't find a worker anywhere. There's nobody out there who can do things." And you would only have to drive but three or four miles at most and have like dozens of people who actually want to work, may not be aware of these opportunities even existing, but seem to be invisible to the workplace. And when you have that kind of invisibility, it's impossible to get to racial equity. And so, how we are talking about this and I'll say for my Bank and I'll speak for the System, even though I probably not supposed to do that, we are very front forward on the idea that the economy has got to work for everyone. And if the economy is not working for everyone, then we got work to do. And part of that work is to build connections and capacities in communities where it's not working for everyone, so it works better. And the workforce development, getting people to skills, is got to be a front-and-center aspect of that effort.
Kashkari: Well said, Raphael. So there's two of us. Two of us can speak for the system. Putnam: Yeah, absolutely. No. And even the conversation that happened at the end of December on race and the economy and the labor market, the conversation the Fed has been having recently on uneven outcomes in the labor market. And I'm curious as you think about these critical issues, do you see this impacting some of your role in your leadership? Are there other initiatives your Bank is looking to take on around thinking about racial equity and particularly the labor market and workforce side of the work?
Putnam: Yeah, absolutely. No. And even the conversation that happened at the end of December on race and the economy and the labor market, the conversation the Fed has been having recently on uneven outcomes in the labor market. And I'm curious as you think about these critical issues, do you see this impacting some of your role in your leadership? Are there other initiatives your Bank is looking to take on around thinking about racial equity and particularly the labor market and workforce side of the work?
Kashkari: Well, in the Minneapolis Fed, like Rafael and the Atlanta Fed, we've been focused on these issues for a long time and we're always keeping our eyes open on what other contributions that we might be able to make. A few years ago we launched our research center, the Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute, focusing on trying to understand these economic disparities and develop potential policy solutions. And then the Racism and the Economy series that the Federal Reserve System, all the [Reserve] Banks are now putting on, that Atlanta and Minneapolis helped to coordinate with Boston at the front end. And now, we're really proud that all the banks are part of it. That was inspired by the killing of George Floyd here in Minneapolis and the response in Minneapolis, the response in Atlanta, the response around the nation. And so, I know we're going to have more tragedies like that. I hope we don't have more challenges like that, but I don't know what else is going to come up that's going to open our eyes that there may be another contribution for us to make or another angle we could take or something else we could learn. I think one of the advantages of having 12 Federal Reserve Banks all around the country interested in these topics is we all may learn something different and then we can share it with each other, learn from each other, and hopefully work together to develop solutions.
Bostic: And at the Atlanta Bank, we several years ago established increasing economic mobility and resilience as a strategic priority. And that runs right to the core of everything that we've been talking about today, as well as the issue about racial equity. Because so many of the reasons why we don't see economic mobility and resilience have a racial element to them. On that, if you don't acknowledge up front, it's just going to be difficult to find a solution that endures and really starts to change and equalize access to opportunity. So we have leaned in considerably on this. And the thing that I really have been pleased about at the System level and certainly in our Bank is that we are becoming much more aware of the fact that there are so many avenues within the Federal Reserve's capacities to make progress on this. If you think about our banking oversight and engagement and things like the Community Reinvestment Act. You think about how innovation happens and payments across the country that might provide new ways of accessing financial tools. And then certainly, you think about our community and economic development efforts and the ways that we are leaning into helping local communities understand their challenges and build partnerships that make positive change. I think that this is a really remarkable time for us to own our full mandate. I think this is actually a reflection of the full mandate that we have to make sure that every person who wants to be productive can be. And I'm just very excited for what's likely to come because everywhere I go, I see a tremendous commitment for this and a willingness of people in our System, but also in the private sector and the public sector, to take concrete steps to make progress on this. So I'm just looking forward to where we're going to go. It's a lot of work. It's going to be hard. And I don't want to not be realistic about that, but with commitment and people who are willing to move forward together, I think great things can happen.
Putnam: I think that is a great note to end on today. So Neel and Rafael, thank you so much for your time and your perspectives. You have both been such tremendous leaders in the System around these topics, and honestly been a delight to talk with you about this. And we hope will be a conversation that our audience will enjoy and participate in as well. So thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. And it was a fantastic conversation and we look forward to seeing where the podcast goes. So thank you.
So you heard it here today from two Federal Reserve presidents. The work we were talking about here is critical for our economy. It's not just about helping those who have been left out of opportunity but building a more resilient and prosperous economy for all of us. But we also know that the work ahead is not going to be easy. It's going to require rethinking how we finance and pay for and partner around workforce development, training, and education. So I hope you'll join us for the next episode, where we'll hear from some experts in social impact investing and how corporations are rethinking the triple bottom line. Thank you for joining us for our first episode of Workforce Realigned. You can find more online at workforcerealigned.org. I'm Ashley Putnam, and it's been a pleasure to be your host.