literature and its impack on issues -- impact on issues ranging from government and legal systems to education, human rights and more. we'll take your calls, questionses and comments. that's live at 1 p.m. eastern time this sunday on booktv. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome to the graduate center. we're delighted to have you as our guests this afternoon, this evening and to listen to some words on this new book by our colleague, josh freeman. i am professor of anthropology and directer of the advanced research collaborative here at the grad center where josh spent, i think, a useful year in

2014-2015. [laughter] which partly, only partly, helped to produce the book. so we have a little claim to helping this realization of this marvelous and important book. this book is intriguing because while today everyone is talking about labor market polarization and the growth of the service sector and application of artificial intelligence on automation and so on, josh takes a somewhat different tack. his tack is emphasizing the continued importance of large scale manufacturing of a massive kind. so i think it's a particularly interesting work from this point of view and something which, if i may say so, justifies the price which is being charged over there. [laughter] and i'd urge you to purchase your copy, if not now, as soon

as possible. we're absolutely delighted that you're here with us. let me introduce people, frankly, when need no introduction. steven greenhouse, former labor correspondent of "the new york times," is over here. mr. greenhouse is, i think everybody who i spoke the told me that he is the preeminent labor correspondent in the united states. all right? [applause] and i looked briefly at his cv and all of these things, it's very impressive. i looked at a recent article on fast food workers, i think, and i even went to his twitter. [laughter] he has 40,000 followers, by the way, so something is going on there. he went to wellesley january university, i think, and then columbia graduate school of journalism and the nyu school of law. he has, of course, innumerable

columns of tremendous public importance with a constant theme of the issue of social justice, unrelenting focus on the issues which affect ordinary people, ordinary working people whether by whatever race, color, creed or whatever. but there is a real unrelenting and, i would say, perhaps rare focus on this kind of person and their destiny today. he, among other things, he's the big squeeze, tough times for the american worker, got the human prize in 2009. he has gotten other awards, new york press club award, the society of professional journalists award for the world of hurt, i think it was. so we have a person in our presence to discuss this work whose heart and ours, i think, in the grad center are beating

along the same rhythm, i would say, and we're delighted to have him. josh, of course, is professor of history here and at queens college. he's distinguished professor of history, let me say, which is important. and deservedly so, i think. his books include american empire: 1945-2000. the rise of a global power. the democratic revolution at home, life and labor since world war ii. and in "strange inheritance" sit: the -- in transit. which i think got the phillip taft labor history book award. a number of other awards, new york society library book prize, education award and, of course, he has fellowships from the american cultural societies, national endowment for the humanities, and the honors go on

and on. but i will not, all right? ladies and gentlemen, our guests. [applause] >> thank you for that wonderful introduction. i'm honored to be asked to interrogate the eminent dr.ing freeman. one thing you didn't say is that my first beat at "the new york times" was covering manufacturing. and i covered the steel industry, and when i left the times 31 years later, i was writing all about sweat shops. and josh writes a lot about steel and sweatshops and a lot in between. this is really a wonderful book, and i recommend it very highly. it's not just about factories, but it's about the history of manufacturing in the world. and it goeses from the very beginning -- it goes from the very beginning in old england and to the beginning of manufacturing in the united states, talks about the keynesian conditions and what

inspired marx to become marx and talks about henry ford and fordism and flint's sit-down strike and fast forwards to foxconn city where there are 300,000 workers, many of who are making ipads and iphones. and josh is a wonderful writer, it's a really, really excellent read. and we don't expect doctors to be able to write so well, but sometimes they do. [laughter] i always thought that, you know, manufacturing began in late 1700s, and in the very first paragraph of your book you write about a factory in 1721 in derby, england. >> yeah. >> very first factory in the world. >> yeah. >> can you tell us a little bit about -- >> yeah. >> -- this factory and what the arrival of manufacturing meant for humankind? >> yeah. i'm going to do the prettying ca thing and not answer your question for one second. i just want to thank don and my

program here, the ph.d. program in history, for sponsoring this and my publisher norton who is wonderful and matt weiland and will scarlett. i cheated, but now i'm going to answer your question. >> okay. >> yes. in darby, england, there still stands, actually, the foundation of a factory that started this 1731. -- in 1721. and it's an extraordinary thing in a way because if you look at a lithograph, i have one in the book, of it you look and go, oh, it's a factory. and yet it was in many ways completely pioneering. it made silk thread, and there was a kind of increasing vogue for silk, luxury good, in england. and the thread, you know, the silkworm and it's in the cocoon and eventually you have to get it into thread that you can weave, this process of making the thread was done by hand, extremely slow. and so this factory was built to use machinery to do it.

and they got the machines designed by stealing them from the italians. bologna was the advanced manufacturer -- john oklahoma sent his finish john oklahoma sent his brother. it was illegal to export the machinery, so he memorized it, hired away a few italian workers, and they went back to darby and they built this factory. they had 300 people which was a vast enterprise by the standards of the day. mostly children, water-powered, you know? integrated production. and it had all the components, you know, that we think of as a factory, you know? and instantly people think like, wow, something new is happening here. so like daniel dafoe goes there, and he writes this kind of gee whiz description of it. and later boswell goes there. people right away recognize something's happening here.

and it becomes very, very important not because of the silk industry which kind of comes out to be a dead end in england, but because it becomes the template for the cotton industry. and the first large cot taan factories are right in the same areas, they're directly copied from this kind of template that this guy developed in 1721. finish. >> and you write about until the next century a lot of textile factories are springing up in england and scotland, and you mention that a lot of them are probably 7-year-old, some factory managers wrrg prefer 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds. what's up with that? >> right, right -- [laughter] well, it's a great question. first of all, yeah, you have to recognize that the problem of asemiis bling work -- assembling a work force is like a new problem. you have armies and sort of coerced labor or and unusual circumstances, but on an ongoing basis, no one before had 200 --

by the 1790s, they'd have 1,000 people in the factory. is where are you going to get the people from? factory other thans liked kids because they're extraordinarily cheap, they're extraordinarily intimidateable, and in many cases they're coerced to be there. sometimes by their parents who are desperate for the income, sometimes they're called parish apprentices, and these are kids who are in orphanages where the local authorities that run them sign contracts with these textile mills that commit these kids to work in them. and, you know, it's criminal activity if the kids run away. they can be arrested for doing so. so, you know, it's a very pliable work force, very cheap. it's justified, oh, you know, they have small fingers, they're nimble and so forth. it's something done by young women, mostly. they're kind of available.

and the factories don't want skilled workers who have a sense of their own knowledge and autonomy, you know? they want someone who has no knowledge that they can simply control. >> so this is a good lead in to discuss the luddites for a second and why they felt they were being taken away by -- their jobs were taken away by kids and others. can you talk about that movement? >> well, sure. you know, it's funny because, you know, it's one of the inheritances we have of that moment, and that term is often used, you know, sometimes people have no idea where it comes from, you know? like in the tech world you hear it all the time. anyone who's against instagram is a luddite, you know? [laughter] but as you suggest, it came from workers -- primarily not factory workers themselves, but workers who were threatened by the introduction of, you know, new systems in mechanical production which which would undercut not only their livelihood, but their

status as self-respecting workers. and, you know, there are very few avenues for protest. this is prior to the suffrage, so working class men don't have the right to vote, there are extraordinary draconian laws about political organization. this is the kind of aftermath of the revolution where the english are very worried that it's going to spread across the channel. so machine wrecking becomes a kind of mode of protest, and there are waves of this around 1811, 1812 and then again a few years later. and it is met with severe repression, you know? the armies mobilize, people are arrested, some were deported to australia, some were hung. because it's seen as a threat to this whole new, emerging system. so it's kind of a beast episode, but it kind of echoes town to us even now finish down to us. >> i thought the book had a terrific session about factory

conditions in england in the first half of the 19th century. and the child workers, the 12-hour days, the, you know, bullying bosses, the horrible air to breathe, the lack of light. and then you see, well, this is where dickens comes from, and, you know, this is where marx is writing, right in this period. you get an idea, wow, manufacturing is really horrible then -- >> yeah. >> the conditions for the proletariat were really horrible then. can you talk about how this might have inspired marx's very dark vision of capitalism? >> well, you know, marx was already a revolutionary of sorts, you know, a critic of emerging -- capitalism is not a word that kind of existed then, but of the political economy. and, of course, after 1848 he was exiled, and he ends up in england where he reunited with frederick engel who he briefly met earlier and begins to write. and partially through engel's and partially through his own

investigation, you know, he becomes very engaged with looking at what's going on in these factories. and, you know, i think marxism is often inherit by us as a very abstract system. he's extraordinarily concrete. and engel's -- who i think as everyone knows, you know, his family was part owner of a manchester cotton mill, and he spent a lot of his adult life working there hating it. feeding marx detailed information. so when you read marx's description of capitalism, he uses the example of the cotton mill x. it's not some abstraction. he masker of course, this much to buy that thing. and they, again, you know, they're not looking just at sort of vast transformations, they are acutely interested in the day-to-day struggles. and for marx above all it's the length of the day, you know, which is the exploitative moment, you know? and these are child labor. and so, you know, it becomes the

central imagery of capitalism in capital, you know? and i think, again, why that is owed to engels including, by the way, marx's ability to write the book because engels subsidized him, offered him the salary he got while he was writing capital. ironic, it dose the full circle -- it goes the full circle. >> it was really eye-opening to read about the early history of manufacturing in the united states. i was having dinner with someone from rhode island, and i said one of the very first factories was in porticket, and just as england stole technologies from italy, america stole technologies from england. ..

>> can you talk about that? >> first francis who was in england came back to the united states to improve english technology.

but they were aware that through that political life on lexicon but alexander hamilton had a lot of critics to feel that what distinguishes us with that autonomy that is undermined. so they want to avoid that to disassemble the labor force. there aren't enough children and without labor shortage so really think of the idea to get young women then they

settle down and get married, but to get social women but have to show their parents that it is a safe thing to do. so with those world police with the boarding houses and then they set out someone like dick in one -- dickens comes to the united states and it is amazing.

and for a while it changes. >> reading about the factories in england and the air is much better but that was a big difference. in the short term workers to avoid the creation of the debate called the proletariat. >> that is a great fear that they see england driven pretty early in the history of the republic they are not revelers but they do believe of the great social distinction of a huge economic distinction.

in terms of the classical revolution the public would be undermined by the proletariat. so this moment of american manufacturing. but who is providing the raw material? >> thank you for bringing that up. because this is completely embedded in slavery. and wyatt explosively expands. not that slavery was going to die out in the united states but it is the growth of the english textile industry that

leads to the spread of the mississippi valley basically that is for the both of most of the content comes from. so when they rise together not only using slave grown cotton but a lot of products are crude cloth then sold back to the south to the slaveholders. and one of the points is to think of manufacturing to be associated with freedom. but also with the idea that they rise together.

>> because their parents can't afford to keep them. so something went south. something went wrong from that model to launch in 1812. what happened? >> in the early days the bills which were owned by a consortium had capital but a lot of other people have to build these mills.

so there really wasn't that much competition to begin with. it basically only cost of the substance and labor so that begins to push down the salaries first it was to machine than for the six but by the mid- 30s to short little strikes because it is getting worse and then they walk away. they go back home, and then comes along the irish famine that bails them out because then you have irish immigrants but then very rapidly within a decade that replaces the workforce.

the whole context is now different. very few alternatives to the cut cut cut and really then not prevails for the next half-century but slowly but surely so then they go from a commercial utopia but then in pittsburgh this deal trade was developing. steele is a symbol of the nation's industrial might lie didn't locate in the pittsburgh area?

proceeds cotton in the forefront of the pioneering industry. you can tell by the things they use in other industries but the system needs radials. in the armaments in the american naval power. it is economically important and with the eiffel tower and then i think they come to

believe tough. and tm autonomy in the nation but that had never been seen in this country before. but technically and economically the scale of these places is amazing. >> to hear about the crystal palace in many ways to introduce people to machinery and manufacturing. >> but you can't resist that with the declaration of

independence. what is the centerpiece of it? and then to have this gigantic room full of scenery. but then president grant turns. so with this roomful of machinery. and then to celebrate. and it landed on national greatness.

>> with the investment banker for andrew carnegie. and bringing us to the leaders of the steel industry and homestead pennsylvania. with carnegie making him deliberately scarce. so they bring them in to break the strike and they start to shoot the pinkertons. and then with the national guard and how the union was broken 12 hours a day, 13 days in a row then they get half the day off and they shift to the night shift for two

weeks. but homestead is offensive about carnegie because this is a very well unionized factory to be sophisticated but workers had created a sliding scale to be paid for every gain in efficiency. workers are a big chunk of that. and with a unionist to control the mill.

and then to survive the inevitable recession. and then to break the union. and that extraordinary rising of american labor. within the 1880s or 1890s. but in those moments when the tide really turned. with those new industrialists. and then to free themselves of these shackles and steel is the most important industry. but then for half a century but the biggest in the united

states. >> so you explain fully very well to develop manufacturing as we know it today. >> and then to be associated with the assembly line. and with a whole series of developments. and then the part that goes into it so the motto is a very long production line and then comes the assembly line.

it is like a kid playing lego. then those assemblers build up the car. the worker stands still. and then to add apart. and with that luxury good and that is a social system as well that was the phrase in the early 20s before the

phrase of mass production replace that for a while. >> and the low cost of goods to make america what it is today and that five-dollar day others say that created the charlie chaplin modern times insanity for automaton workers what is your verdict? >> all of the above. whether they are inseparable or not is the question. that isn't made possible. and then to get huge amounts cheaply.

some people don't like stuff but we think of that as improving our lives. it is so unpleasant not out of the goodness of his heart. the actual contents of the job is so debilitating. and with those discussions immediately in the 20th century. and that you say this is a promise for a better life.

this is better than starvation and then to have shorter hours. people are grappling with this problem but then in dearborn michigan that culmination of under 200 workers the largest in the world and a lot of people there but then there was a wonderful quote to say if i keep putting on nut number 8686 more days i will be nuts number 86 and the bunkhouse. [laughter] so then to get this workers.

>> with that extreme centralization in the americas. it also vertically integrated the way nobody else does that even today to make most of the things in their cars. ford and starting with the glass in forest of northern michigan that favorite discovery in this book is the charcoal briquette. kingsford was the name of the cousin he put in charge but then the briquette cannot be recycled into scraps so he had

extreme vertical integration. and a vast market and they were in a way but also with all of your eggs in one basket. so eventually manufacturers here is the culmination of 1 million ways of the architecture in the technology and labor relations to be recognized as such but no factory in america the photographers and filmmakers that is magnetic. >> but then that painting and

then he writes about ford being antiunion provided by gary bennett so how do we go from this huge union success at the gm plants? so the depression of the new deal that it delegitimized as an 1820s it is like our age that figure that is seen as brilliant and exciting but this is for the good stuff for the bad stuff but then that brings in that legitimacy for the workers but first gm and

then flint. but here is the model that boomerangs on the company's for example that is the case with chevrolet but if you stop that one plant you shut down every chevrolet production in the united states. and that is the chokepoint and just a few key places. in those reasons why it was so effective. and then to hold out. and then finally cracked when the union goes on strike again.

and then to get everything set up. and then it is much stronger. and with those pressures. but and then to give the best contractor. >> and then manufacturing from the west and china and vietnam. and then to copy some of the best and some of the worst but when people start jumping off the roof varied in the stories

with those various estimates of 300,000 workers. and then the idea of a factory of 300,000 workers blew my mind. so with six or 7000 is a huge factory. but you are right they are not integrated that way. they do make parts but they do have scale in the way that they depend on the migrant workers from four parts of central china and then before going back home and very cheap labor.

not sources of national pride and henry ford love people to visit his factories. including his rivals places are hidden they are very different and very similar. >> c were just talking about flint and to make although chevy engines in one place.

then to have big famous apple and then with that factory that is monumentally stupid for any number of reasons but. >> i thought about this a lot. but the answer in my view so the ability of labor to shut down these essential integrated plans with american manufacturers and to have multiple plants places that you don't have to worry about that kept the model so west germany for example with those policies but now main point is

70000 workers but china you have the autocracy you have the red army. and you have some heavy artillery out here to maintain order. so the super gigantic factories and places for there is not a fear of labor disruption but i should say that huge strike wave going over the last 56 or 77 years that people don't realize that exist but it is local strikes the only last two or three or four days and then immediately shut down apple knows this. >> in with the labor market polarization so they don't

need manufacturing workers. what you make of that? but they have those criticisms but then to build the new factories. that is where the newest ones came in. clearly there are multiple models and that is usually the key but sometimes low wage does not pay and an extreme example is if you see history go backwards.

and it looked like in the 1900s but these are big brand-new air conditioning units. this is in a marginal player but h and am and walmart and everybody under the sun. how you make money with modernization will continue. and then globally anyway what those factory laborers as a major part of the economy. >> so deep a lot -- put on your philosopher hat what would you do to fix manufacturing?

or what do you do going into the future? >> that is a tough question but what should have been done was done was utilization to give workers some say on the shop floor but with a slice of the productivity of these factories. this is what people are nostalgic for when they say make america great again it is that combination. in the other side is these jobs are really rough. to be physically packed there is that deeper question is

there a fundamental transformation that could efficiently put out goods without that toll and there hasn't been that much experimentation. so that is the open question the answer is i don't know. >> we will take questions from the audience. [inaudible] how did you get your information about what's going on in china?

>> actually do occasionally cover this pretty well and sometimes the asian business press covers it. the other thing is there is a group of extraordinary talented ethnically chinese academics mostly based in taiwan or hong kong who have done a lot of work on this. some of them have jobs in the factories so there is a fair amount of information even though it is very difficult for foreign research to get. every once in a while even they will talk about it. so the current guy who developed the system how do you make computers for a while? tim cook said forget it we don't want to make things.

and he occasionally has talked about it over the years. >> thank you for this interesting conversation. you have your theory why american manufacturing is getting smaller so how do you apply that because those companies are massive in united states and we talked about repeat ration of cash but it's not really cash in his corporate funds so how do you apply your research to the financial ossetian? feeling that's a very great question. but i would say a couple things the earliest example of the massive workforce would be

walmart that developed that effectively where the new deal never happened when you talk about the rule missouri or arkansas the legal circumstances and then throw back to the 1920s it is the most as they pick up in that. so by the time like amazon recently with warehouses and working conditions they were so much weaker than in 1950 when general electric was building factories all over the country. i don't think this is the forefront of the fingers just isn't something they were worried about four in the

1970s this opposes the change in the american economy and the circumstances different so to go back almost to an earlier context. >> i saw a statistic today when ample -- apple enter the iphone no kia was 110 market cap was worth a hundred now apple is worth hundred billion now no caps is like 47 billion so some is a bag of your ideas versus the marketing of that idea and great things happen for shareholders. >> maybe this question is too broad but you call a factory

going back to 1731 so in many ways this could be to any collective human effort and if you create welding projects trade deals, shipbuilding before the 18th century in the depression a lot of those same themes so how do you arrive that unit of analysis? >> your point is very well taken there were largest images of working people so your point is very well taken but shipbuilding is a good example but most manufacturing those kinds of things of those building materials are put

very small numbers of people and that is a quantum leap with that type of activity and some of those earlier examples like civil engineer coming out of the military like when ford it comes out of the armory. because the military was to repair them. so with those interconnections with the language of labor you see that with the picket and the strike but i think that comminution of the consumer goods and how that is made is

what i was saying. when i was launching on the project so this is the biggest and most advanced part of the future of today and that is exactly what the book is the case study and what about the 20s? >> so opening with the history of the very first factory building in the world and yes you are right shipbuilding going on with the greeks and the romans but it starts off with here is a factory in the world and then you thank you read a book about this factory but then it is a history of factories especially about things that consumers want

like shipbuilding and making cannons because that is much more for the government or the wealthy. >> i am intrigued of your comparison from western germany i am from germany so just to play a different role and in general i would agree with the assessment getting into the conflict but if you think of the history of the union movement and seems to have a rebirth at some point in time because even people in germany were also the victim of oppression by authoritarian governments thought was very contentious up until the

1950s but somehow it was the reverse with the city upon a hill and the democracy it just fits into different equilibrium with labor relations but actually to have been talked about like the real obstacles that i would be interested in hearing about human organizatio organization. >> i'm not an expert on germany but german industry has a model but after world war ii when they finally got that mass production model

like during the occupation with those things that lead to that social democratic model and therefore makes the managers more confident. just like basf the chemical companies if you have 30,000 people if you have a chemical company we understand there could be a flood but they just didn't worry as much but in the united states a lot of research historians reverse and the thought of the new deal so i think a lot of new literature has argued that they never really reconciled.

they were practical and pragmatic what they could and could not do but ideologically like moving people out of these fortresses like schenectady or cleveland. but finally that moment comes it isn't like the company to unionize itself but i do think there is a business culture in the united states it was that practical and ideological and spiritual freedom of management and the right to manage i think that is stronger here than in europe.

>> i want to ask a question on the value creation and what is created intrinsically in the factory? and what value is created by the taxpayer-funded church and infrastructure? like board for example could not make cars? so what about the shift of the value creation and then what about the infrastructure and

that also i'm interested of the parallel with the information age factory. >> there is a lot there. but i can give you a couple of angles there is a lot now that why are factories efficient it seems self-evident that some people argue those original arguments to be technologically determined that most people don't think that anymore but that interpretation of transactions

and to integrate things in one's base and labor control is much greater, there are all kinds of theories about why you might be more efficient but the crux of your question is the point there is no morsel sufficient entities or the fact that they can't exist that they themselves had to build it. how do you get to the cotton to these of secure places? in england they had to carry over them the moors. factory owners built the load that i visited these factories themselves. there is a good book from a former colleague that just came out about manufacturing in the united states it is

subsidized by the state or other enterprises he says that they are not self-contained privately owned things and cannot exist that way i do think that is true that without self-contained vets that is beyond my capacity. >> how important that we have manufacturing in this country as opposed to contracting out overseas? >> one of the few things that i share about 8% of the

workforce is manufacturing down from 24% and there are multiple reasons but what makes them good jobs could be controversial but right now they could be better fade with benefits -- better paid with nfs but with a great multiplier effect they create ancillary jobs which i do think is important as well. and by the way for the national security ordinance as well some people argue if you have a hollowed out economy ultimately your power has to be reduced and that is traditional thinking.

so those are all reasons why we want to have manufacturing here and even some come on -- companies like ge who have the design are increasingly now arguing that design benefits from that process because they had no feedback from people who made them but even like articles and then to depend on other people and then to exploit that question that we need to confront so if you don't have to see that then

that is a disaster for the united states to be psychologically on that path it will crash and burn and then to be oblivious to sustain the way of life. and people were very hard. but i was so amazed. >> so those steelworkers say that they put all the steel mills out of business at some point in time to say stop exporting steel to the united states hypothetically could be the military industry in a

volatile position but that could create vulnerabilities. one last question. >> one of the things is when you transfer it to the soviet russia and soviet poland and they are interested in for production but with a different social model. and ideology over there so maybe connect at how stephen asked about what you would fix but you didn't talk about workplace control. and with the lines of germany i wonder if workplace control in the boardroom is good enough for the shop floor? >> i had the most fun writing

about the chapter of the soviet union. so with great industrialization of the 20s and 30s american companies were very heavily involved in designing factories and staffing them and get the whole industrial system set up so then you transport that system into a different social system and what was remarkable to me was how robust and how impervious that system was to change. so the second question you raise is that at the time in the soviet union? the winning position was if it goes to the state which is the people that that is what makes it different than capitalism.

with the other argument says no they are inherently oppressive systems. we should have a different work with technology and who controls the workers on the floor. that was mostly defeated. there were unions in the soviet union but was less dangerous for a worker to criticize the manager. in fact when people are executed in the soviet union it is the manager not the worker. often it is justified but to retain that notion to say to have that machine to benefit the whole side.

the only place we have this experimentation now is china no sentiments that are fascinating so i don't know if we will ever see that moment again if people ever raise these questions in such a profound way but that was a fascinating part looking at that system because they did get raised in very sophisticated raise -- ways. >> so the story that you tell is looking backwards so manufacturing in the story it doesn't change that much it changes location essentially

on the disempowered workers of that connection between manufacturing and authoritarianism actually becomes greater the factory is not a democracy so in the modern world manufacturing is more and more authoritarian practice from that global perspective. so here is where the germany example is interesting and possibly says more about the future because if we are ever successful to raise the standards from the bottom up set the global standard or the global floor not just on wages but right, then the

implications for manufacturing the reason it doesn't changes it doesn't have to we have this global low road manufacturing system. but it occurs much less than it would if it were pressured by rising wages, which you kind of see in germany with the powerful unions in the 28 hour work week or something like that with the recent contract. so the history of manufacturing is not necessarily the future if we are ever so successful to raise the standards globally. >> very well put. my conclusion was this model has been with us for a few hundred years but is not sustainable long-term and there are places that do still

exist and that started as a natural history to use that old-fashioned phrase with there were chinese having children or orphans and they would exploit them and then there was the technology but then things happen in the unions come along, we just go up in a huge fixed cost of innovative technology and now 100 years later the factory is gone. but this is done over and over again in a different place. germany is the exception to prove the rule we will see in 50 years but. >> it is running out of places to run to. >> exactly it isn't like will run out of new things to

explore. [laughter] >> so on that optimistic note, thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]