I was struck by a statistic in your book when when i was reading it, that 20 o 20 % of economic growth since 19 60 as because of reduced barriers to employment for women. But it reminded me of something woran buffet has said, which is, how can we have a fully functioning economy for leaving out half the work force, or depriving half the work force of the ability to maximise its potential? And think of all

that, that's exactly right. In the question is, are we doing it? Or is it coming from this more it set of structures that we're talking about? Is it the cock roaches? Because if it's the cock roaches, we can just step on them, we cald we could seal up the holes, we could cal an exterminator. But it's not the cockroaches only. It's something more complex. Thank you very much. Claudia, i rit i was a pleasure talking to luigi and a pleasure meeting you. Bethany,

the concept of greedy work, to me, is really, really interesting, because i think that's incredibly true, but i still do think that the existence of greedy work is a form of discrimination. Maybe it's not causal, but there's certainly a correlation between the rise of these jobs that are at the very, very tippy top of the income spectru and the fact that they are incredibly male dominated, and the fact that they, by their nature, exclude women. Its structural discrimination is much as the structure of the family back in the before the birth control pill. And there are cases where the woman is the one who goes to her greedy job and the husband is the one who stays home, but those are still few and far between. The burdens of raising children, whether it's the young years of children, or, frankly, these years. I was just talking to a friend of mine, who, like me, has a full time job, and we're both going crazy with the amount of effort it takes to schedule our children and get them to their activities. And that that burden falls on it falls on us by its nature. It means that you can't be all on your job. And i can't help see a kind of structural discrimination in that. And then, of course, there's the fact that if divorce happens, whatever, bargain a couple may have arrived at between themselves about whose who. Whose job is, who's going to do the greedy job, t ends up hurting the person who didn't choose the greedy job. And that becomes a form of ongoing discrimination as well. So i guess what i'm quibbling about is the idea that her work shows there isn't discrimination. I think it's discrimination, just of a different kind than it was in the past. Perhaps let

me push back a bit on this. There is no doubt that there are cultural factors make difficult. And thereis no doubt that the most highly paid professions are highly mandominated and they are gready jobs. The question i have is whether this is done in a very economic way, as a baryer to entry. All this is done because these jobs want to keep out women. Why the pharmacy professon has changed so much, as claudia documents, because in the old days, was an independent profession where there was a relationship between the pharmacist and the clients and so be there 24 seven was a big advantage. And was a profitable profession where there were a lot of men in it. What brought equality? Paradoxically, was copered america. Thet too cover pharmacist reduced that to a very substitutable job, decreased dramatically the salary and made it very easy for men and women to do it equally. And that's the reason why the discrimination disappeared. Now, if i am an investement banker, i want to try to protect the relationship with my client by putting every possible obstacle to other people to do the same. Am i put in an obstacle because your woman? No, i'm put in a hospitl because i put every obstacle. And i make people, a youngersociate, walk to a midnight every night, to make it difficult to enter into this professionand maintain the rent i have to day. I

think that's fair.