the tv continues now television for serious readers. >> good evening everyone i'm the executive director on behalf of the staff here in our wells friends at buckley the pleasure to welcome you to tonight's discussion we thank them for continuing use gotten word by now they're exactly

what you think they are no matter where you are if you get my meaning. will 60 minutes minutes into a question and answer period to streamline please go to the q&a platform and submit your questions or scan the qr code right now on the screen with your smart phone. we will drop this link in the check. any reader going to do what you were going to do. i'm sure you will have some after tonight's conversation. her mind to it later exactly how you can join and be part of the conversation. will be able to address every question we got to get as many as we can. those who interview with closed captions click the cc button in the bottom right corner.

upcoming events include object design for the world of motherhood. obama advisor tactical ways to resent your government from solving public problems. compared by susan orlean visit our website the latest updates as more programs are added throughout the season. ciao no work be possible for your support and the support of our sponsors specific sears to permit the realnetworks foundation and the winco foundation northwest. which you likely know by now town halls underneath a number of organizations when you think i'll remember shooting in tonight. share townhall vision with science and culture, we hope you'll consider supporting us with a donation or by becoming a member yourself. last i know you want to dig in deeper and tonight's topic by

purchasing your own copy so please use the link and the chat below to pick up your copy through third place books. with that historian economist welcome women in the u.s. economy claudia goldman is a professor of economics at harvard university. golden research covers a large range of topics including the labor fork the gender gap is also codirector of the national bureau of economic research gender and economy studies group previously director of the economy program from 1989 to 2017. research interprets the origins of current issues of concern. book includes gender gap in 2008 until 2018 women working

longer. scott brings fundraising communications for career worker workforce development nonprofit she received her phd in political communications focusing on agenda and american politics and the university of washington served as vice president a board member of the national women's political caucus which helps women please join me in welcoming claudia goldman with a brief introduction to your book before she welcomed scott to the conversation. in the meantime claudia goldman. >> thanks very much. prior to march of 2020 and a time i'm going to call vce,

which means before the covid era, reasons that women were being held back from achieving a career and family class parted and allowed us to see what was in their way. then, in march of 2020 as we dissented into what i call the d.c. era, enduring covid, rather than altering that realization, the pandemic brought actually further clarity to it. and actually moved into a hybrid era in which we live now. i'm going to call ac/dc after covid but also enduring covid. we have amazingly enough and i say really surprisingly embraced as a nation the possibility of real change in

caregiving and also in the workplace. my book takes you on that journey of discovery and traverses 120 years during a time when college graduate women were not able to have family and career or job can now, when many anticipate having both a family and a career. today more women than men are graduating college and men and women are achieving advanced and professional degrees. while there is great similarity in ambitions, there is less and eventual achievement. the reason concerns the concept of work in relation between gender equality and couple equity.

or shall i say also between gender inequality and coupled in equity these two sides of the same issue and two sides of the same coin. they are the two signs for heterosexual couple. they can be couple inequity for heterosexual couples. that does not necessarily increase gender inequality give up couple equity that increase gender inequality. and our conversation today is going to explain precisely why that occurs and what might be done about it. a few clarifications first my work concerns college graduate

women they have had the greatest opportunity to achieve career. in the second clarification is in a career is different from a job. i mean it to be something different. a career is achieved over time. it comes to mean to run a race. a job on the other hand is a spot position to earn a living, to make income. the use of college graduate women we are going to talk about form a six session five generations, five groups. each historically having warnings having advice.

with women he served in congress beginning with jeannette rankin as the first woman elected to federal office. she was typical of this career portion of her group. she had no children, she had never married but she had one heck of an amazing career. and on the other side is tammy duckworth the first senator to have a baby while holding office and the first to bring a baby to an active session of congress although most people would say there have always been babies in congress. looking is in the middle gear. group fives ends with women now in their 40s and the reason i do that is i want to know everything they've done in terms of marriage, children and generally i can measure most of that by the time they

are in their 40s. i don't mean to say women in their 20s and 30s aren't left out, group fives still continues. so let's explore all of their journeys to understand why we are not yet there. thank you. >> will doctor golden, so nice to see you. we spoke earlier and you asked me too call you claudia which i am delighted to do. i want to acknowledge your vast work and experience. i also wish we could have you join us in person. i know you are speaking to us from one of your offices at harvard university. >> absolutely. >> will have to have you back out here at some point in the future. thank you so much it's an honor to speak with you and an honor to speak with you at townhall in organization and

does so much for our community and manages to bring together the space of one week this conversation in conversation about transportation so such is the life. you started by sharing a definition that you were using for this to work about career. i'm going to ask you to continue with defining some of the terms you are using. what does family mean specifically for this work? >> family just means a child so therefore i do not have children i have a dog the dog is part of my family but not as i am defining it. it's also the case in the work that i am doing and the measures that i have made, and does not require there be a husband present or a spouse present.

>> what about the concept of work that you introduce? >> means an employee who is willing to work lots of hours. maybe not just the number of hours but the weekends, vacations, the persons who is on call at the office. that is the person who will get bigger rewards. so when these words are disproportionate to the time that is put in and that means if you double the number of hours you more than double the amount this person earns, that is the definition here of greedy work. it is even bigger than that in the sense that it may not be as i said the number of hours maybe which hours. and the relationship can be more dynamic in this sense there are lots of positions at

the concept of greedy work and that's the basis for much of the argument in the second part of the book. some of the responsibility has to be some sense at home. someone has to be on call at

home greater flexibility person travel there used to be positions like that, that would not be a highly flexible position. someone has to take the flexible less demanding position in consequence that position pays less even on an hourly basis. and it is when one person in the couple does that when i have an absence of couple equity the other person has a

very good job but it may be a job that enables more flexibility. we know we are generally the one who is the on call at home parent. on the flipside it is gender inequality. there heterosexual couples let's call it specialization. they often jettison couple equity because it is expensive. and it just depends upon how expensive it is. so if you are to lawyers, and one lawyer could earn a very

large amount that has to work long hours. or if it is a consultant and has to travel every other weekend or in accountant or many other different occupations, and then another job that has more flexibility the does not have these requirements is much lower let's say $20000 a year lower than that is the amount they would have to pay to have couple equity. that's the relationship between couple equity can you speak specifically gender gap and why do we care? we care because in some sense we want there to be equality

went there to be equality of opportunity. there are lots of possible reasons we know gender gap in terms of earnings. that we certainly know. there are many different ways of measuring it. but, some of the reasons that we stand up for as being wrong are sexual harassment and what we think of as discrimination or wrongs. and that is certainly responsible for sums part. but the vast amount of these differences are due to the factors i've set forth. by and large, and we see and what we call event studies

that if there are couples and children, then after the children are born, or arrived, the differences in earnings between men and women if it is a heterosexual couple increase by quite a lot. so the fact that there is a set of reasons for gender imbalances and earnings that we point to, such as bias and discrimination something can be done about them whereas if we get rid of all of those and i hope one day we will get rid of all of those, we will still be left with the differences in earnings due to these other set of factors. >> is that true historically as well? can you speak about the longitudinal work you've done with these different cohorts of women in the late 1800s

until now essentially? and what you have impact if we past these groups, we see barriers that are greater than anything we can imagine today. up until the 1940s in many school districts in the u.s., they were what were called marriage bars. so if you weren't married you could not get a job as a teacher and many school districts. if you were a teacher and got married you could be summarily fired. during the great depression in the 1930s these also spread to

would begin to decline over time that she looked back to the group one and group two, and then beginning with group three they began the real barriers began to crumble. we go back to group one into, we see that women had career or family because there were real barriers in terms of laws and regulations of school districts. they were and tight nepotism rules so if you were a professor and married to another professor you get another job in the same place. these sort of began to crumble and 1940s and the 1950s.

lots of other, i think one by one these are barriers began to crumble. but in some sense this is why i began with the clouds parted and what has really been going on has become clearer. >> can you speak about your decision to dive into this historical work? what has that approach brought to your research? what has that approach clarified what we are experiencing today? >> right. so this is in some sense a very big question. my research has really been into parts. and so i've been an economic historian for a very long

time. and i have researched many different aspects of the economy and of women in the economy. in my first book understanding the agenda gap, was oddly not that much about earnings and differences but about differences in employment. why was it that women, let's say in the 19th century or perhaps 10% of the labor force. and over time it became half of the labor force. why isn't the case that happens in just about every country that is developed? and so my early work was really about trying to understand the evolution of women's employment. but, i also became interested

in differences in earnings. and in many ways this book sort of combines the two. it puts together the evolution of the groups of women who are trying to put together career and family. beginning with group one who has career or family and that group of 50 of them never had children. and 30% of them never married. they really had one or the other. and then we move into let's say the third group of which is a group that graduated college from the late 40s to the mid 60s. these are the mothers of the baby boom. these are the people they were writing about. and in many ways they were not

retrograde. they were not sort of backward they were pushing forward. they were individuals who were enabled to have first family and then a job and possibly even a bit of a career. and remember ruth bader ginsburg was really part of that group. and what is fascinating is that she in many ways was almost typical of her generation and that she sort of stepped back a bit when she and marnie were here at harvard and then he left and went to new york. she left. she went in transferred to columbia. and when his job became very demanding and they had two children, and she for a short time, stayed with the kids and his career as a tax lawyer

began to take off. and then we know things changed. and then we fast forward from group three, two group five. so group three putting family first and then having a job or career as ruth bader ginsburg certainly did. then we move into generation that were enabled because they had a birth control pill to not tie the knot early, but to delay marriage, to delay children, and to invest in their career. and this history then, leads us to ask the question, so then what happened : :

one the concepts, one of the themes rather that you visit a couple different times throughout this is the challenge of time constraints, particularly for women who have a couple of different clocks going at the same time. can you speak to the structure of work and how it intersects with the time constraints that you identify? >> sure. so, but everything sort of depends upon the type of work that someone is doing, and so, for example, a lawyer, we know that lawyers who are in big-ticket law firms make a tremendously larger amount per hour than in the boutique law

firm. they work more hours and they, in many ways, consider themselves to have a rather unique value. now, there are occupations that are very different. so pharmacy, for example, now is a very different occupation and it changed over time. so there was a time when a pharmacy was an occupation which women earned a lot less than men, and the reason was that the pharmacist was generally a man who owned his own business. and so go back to about 1970. most pharmacists worked in owner operated businesses, and there are still many that exist today. and that pharmacist might hire and of the pharmacist as an

assistant, often a woman, and that pharmacist would not have as many of the demands, the time demands that are required at some of who owns their own business. there have been many changes occurred rather organic that were not due to the fact that women wanted to have more flexible work, and so that was the rise of the corporate model associated with cvs and walgreens and write a comment pharmacists can better substitutes for each other through the standardization of drugs and these of elaborate information technologies, and they no longer received the financial rewards or have the time demands of ownership. and the gender earnings gap for hourly earnings in pharmacy among the lowest in high-paying occupations, even though a substantial fraction of female pharmacists work part time at

least at some point in their careers, and pharmacy is i think the one of the interesting things about covid, the era of covid, is that we suddenly realized that we are very dependent on our pharmacists. we suddenly realized that in walgreens and cvs and rite aid there are amazing professionals who work there who are in many ways our first line of defense against disease. now, it's the case that in some occupations these changes didn't come about organically. they came about because individuals realized that they wanted more flexibility in some of these occupations are in health. for example, pediatricians realized well, i want to spend more time with my kids, not just

with your sick kids, and they formed groups and these groups of pediatricians met they would have a member of their team who could take over for them. and the same is true in veterinary medicine and the same is true in a bunch of other occupations in which individuals said i would like more flexibility. and it's jobs like that that bring down the price of flexibility. that's really in some sense, there are jobs that, in which individuals work very, very long hours and there are very few substitutes for them, and then there are positions in which it's pretty clear that firms and institutions realized that having at least one or two substitutes for workers, having

some redundancy in organizations is good for the workers. >> so the really does need to be a fundamental shift in how work is structured to continue to move us down the path we are on, it's accurate? >> i think it is. and i think one of the amazing silver linings to our year of exile is that we have learned how to sort of reduce the price of flexibility. and i'll give you a very good example. so in many occupations, in many firms, travel was extremely important, and so in fact, many occupations, many large firms, deloitte, for example, decided that they would have limits on the amount of travel that the employees would have to do, but

even saying well, you have to travel except twice a month may still be too much for a parent who has young children. but if it's the case that we have learned now that you could do a deal in japan without being there to do the handshake in person, and you could sign a contract in beijing without actually being there, that you could somehow develop trust between client and and the professionals, then we have brought down the price of flexibility. it certainly looks like we have done that. now, that said, ask anyone who is listening and right now, ask just about anyone who works at a university or a large firm, have

you, or state government, have you figured out what your workers are going to be doing, who's going to be working at home, who's going to be coming in? how much inefficient it's going to be if everyone is at home, how much inefficient it would be if one came in. i don't think anyone has the answer yet. >> clotted, -- claudia, you wrote this book during the pandemic, and as you just said we've seen the shape, we've seen this shift and reshaped so much of how we think about work, but how did it shape your thinking as you wrote this book? you studied parts of the subjects for years and decades. what brought it all together right now for you? >> so the book was just about finished in march of 2020.

certainly not completely finished in march of 2020, thank goodness. i cannot imagine what i would be saying now to myself if i finished the book before march of 2020. however, even though the book was begun long before the pandemic, it really took on new urgency with a lockdown. everything that i had been saying about the reasons for the remaining differences between men and women and their earnings and their promotions and their ability to have career, everything that i was saying became clearer during the pandemic. that's what i meant by at the beginning that even with the pandemic suddenly things that were clear actually became even clearer when schools closed and burdens increase for all parents and fortunate workers could shelter at home and could retain

their jobs. the pandemic really magnified the factors that i raised in the book. the importance of flexible work, the career cost of children more to women than to men, and the cost to women of couple in equity regarding an equal division of work and family. >> claudia, i have one final question for you and then i would love to open it up to questions from the audience. so much of what we hear in society right now is that women, specifically the women who are the subject of this work, college-educated and interest in careers, engaged in careers, so much of what we should be doing is individual action, leaning in negotiating, , proactively askig for a raise. all of that is well and good but what i want to know is where are the men?

what do we need them to be doing? can you talk about the role that they play and how do we re-create a bunch of marty's? >> that's right, , marty is mary ginsburg of course, yeah. so when i first came to harvard and i decided to teach a different course than i had thought before, i began a course on women work and family. and i went around the room. it was a very, very small class, and i asked my students what they wanted, and one of the students in the class, you know, this is why i love my students so much is, she came out with a statement that i think that if i

fought hard and hard i probably would not of even able to sas beautifully. she said i want a spouse who wants what i want. and in some sense what she was saying was you can learn to negotiate with your boss, with your manager, with your supervisor, you could learn to walk into h.r. and say this is what i deserve, but dammit, do it first with the person you're going to share a family with, just to make clear that that person wants what you want. i somehow get a sense, a sense, that, and maybe a sense that because i live as many of us do in her own little bubble, and that college-educated men, and i

would love to hear from people in the audience who are younger than i, that college graduate men find, maybe even all men, find having a spouse, a woman, who was also successful and happy and pleased and able to carry on wonderfully, interesting discussions. that's a real plus, and i think of it as, if i can be blunt, the new trophy wife. and so the new, if the new trophy wife is more like kiana, then we also will have solved the problem. and so perhaps the younger generation of men may be if, in

ten, 15 years i ago and i add group five plus, i'll realize that there really are a different group and they are a different group not because of the women but because of the men. >> i'm going to turn to a question from the audience. someone asks, would you say that you still see work that is considered women's work? and if so how do you see those stereotypes changing? >> good question. so there are fundamentals and then there are sort of stereotypes, so let me deal more with fundamentals. so in what i had been saying, the type of work that if you have a couple who have children and one of them has to be sort of on call at home, that person

could still have a job, but the type of job may be a job that requires more flexibility, and it disproportionately women take it it's going to be thought to be more of a woman's job. now, that said, it's also the case that there are certain jobs that even by the very name become women's work, and so nurses, it's a very interesting point, that in many parts of the country to be a nurse requires an rn, which is a college degree, no longer less than that, and then many nurses go further than that and, in fact, earn a substantial amount and are highly respected and can prescribe drugs.

but it's also the case, interestingly, that these are, the word nurse means a woman's job, and so being a physician assistant which is in many states has the same level of responsibility and equivalent salaries to the nurses with advanced degrees is more a male job relative to nurses which is more a female job. so in that since sense thl some quote stereo typically female jobs, even with advanced degrees in college degrees and professional degrees. >> someone else asks, do you think that women who work only in the home should be paid an income? >> it's a very tricky question, and i never like to think that what i think matters because it

doesn't really matter, but because one might say i think that it would be good if everyone received a level of income that was -- gave them a decent standard of living. and if someone has children and these children require care, then it would be very good if an individual had a decent standard of living. i don't think that it's practical, and so the question is how would one create a system so that individuals who work at home or cared, i mean, caring for the elderly, for example, at home is, in fact, there are programs. there are federal programs and state programs that pay individuals to care for others

at home. the amount that they pay is pretty minimal, but there is still an amount. whether we had some basic about that individuals received, i don't think that it would be an easy thing to devise appropriately, so i think that there are noble goals but impractical solutions. >> one of the solutions that you identify in the epilogue of your book is a fundamental rethinking of the way the united states handles care, both elder care and child care, burdens that we know fall disproportionately on women. can you speak to that and any other solutions that you identified that would move forward? >> sure. some of these are sort of win-win solutions, so let's talk

a little bit about universal preschool. so children who are three to five years old, that would be preschool, prekindergarten, they are not, you know, they are out of diapers so we don't have, you know, some of the larger difficulties, and the question really is when should school start? you know, in the 1920s we didn't have tender garden. there were many states and, in fact, there were countries even recently that didn't start school until seven years old. and we know that that increases the burdens disproportionately on women, but it also means that children don't get the type of education that will serve them

well in their lives. so a win-win solution is when you have a program that aids both the individuals such as in this case, the parents, and produces children who are better in terms of their ability to be good citizens to earn and to learn. i think -- so this is applied for the bible universal preschool -- this is a bug for the bible universal preschool. the elder care issue is another important aspect and once again we have, we do not have a program in the u.s. which is

long-term care. medicaid is, as a program which is long-term care but you have to be impoverished. you have two not have wealth to do that. we do not have programs that subsidize long-term care without going into medicaid. it's not medicare, but we do have programs that would in many states would enable professionals to come into the home and get paid by medicare to do that, and in places that those exists, what happens, not surprisingly, is that the patient is better off because the patient doesn't have to go elsewhere, and the other person is better off generally is the

daughter who doesn't come to take care of her mother or father. so both of these types of social programs have benefits that go beyond the client, in one case, the little child, in the other case the sicker, elderly person. those types of social programs are the ones that are being discussed in the white house and in congress now. >> this is another question from the audience. to what extent do you think the increase of women in the workforce is the result of the economy not allowing for single earning households? has our society begrudgingly come to have more women engage in work outside the home because our earnings for workers in general have not kept up with inflation? >> yeah, but the sad thing is that that would be true of individuals below the median,

and we know that, in fact, female labor force anticipation for low income, and low income households is less than female labor for gestation and in the higher income assets so go slightly the other way. >> can use a little bit more about that? that's interesting. >> gap. part of it is because the lower income households have individuals with lower levels of education, and so their ability to get better jobs and to be more sort of motivated to work and to earn income is somewhat less than for the higher income individuals. we have enormously wide inequality of earnings in the u.s. and we have enormously wide inequality of family income. so at the lower end are

disproportionately single mom's with kids, okay? and at the higher in our disproportionately couples that have high levels of education. so in fact, you know, i don't buy into the premise of the question and, in fact, the facts don't seem to lend any credibility to it. i think the person who asked it will probably think no, no, no, i can rephrase it so you understand what i'm saying. and i think that the rephrasing of that would be something like, do women work in general because we have a system in which to be an upstanding family you have to have incomes that are about some

level, you know, and that's one way. i think you might be able to interpret what has happened over time as adding to that, but i would disagree. >> thank you. one thing that is really relevant to this conversation that you discussed in the book is the difference between institutionalized discrimination such as marriage bars, and more subtle forms of discrimination such as women not knowing salaries or women not being advanced. can you speak about the difference between those formal and informal -- >> sure. >> factors. thank you. >> i think about it in the following way. when there are regulations you are not even allowed into the

club. it's like the door is locked. these regulations can be part of general practice. women aren't hired in some jobs, let's say. men aren't hired in other jobs, or they can be actual regulations such as marriage bars or nepotism ban. but in the other case you mentioned, a person might be invited into the club but can't partake in all the activities, so the latter are the more subtle factors that prevent women from moving upward and being part of the group. so that's one way of thinking about it. >> thank you. i have another question from the audience. post-pandemic, how would you like to see employers respond to the many gender dynamic issues that you raised, and why can't employers do to fix the problem? >> all right, and what employers

are doing, for example, is, in this has to do with men and women, they are saying, so think about come for example, in seattle. it's expensive to live in the heart of seattle, and so some people, maybe they took refuge in their cabin somewhere, you know, in the alpine lakes region, and speedy for those who don't know i will mention you're an avid hiker particularly in this part of the world and so you quite familiar with many of washington states most beautiful areas. >> where i wish i was. and so, , so this is true for mn and women that firms in seattle and san jose and san francisco and boston, chicago, all over, are faced with. i would like to work three days

a week on-site and two days a week not. whole different range. what we want to make certain of the note is that the group that is working more at home or in the cabin in the alpine lakes region, that we don't create a work from home ghetto that's women. we want to make certain that, that there's more inequality. so if there's work from home two days a week we should all be working from home two days a week. now this creates various problems for the footprint of corporations, affirms, that many firms right now have too much commercial real estate which is, you know, pretty astounding given -- i think if anyone said one of the results of this

pandemic would be too much commercial real estate a year and half ago, i think we would've said, or in march of 2020, we would've said there is no such thing as too much commercial real estate. but that's what we have. so what firms can do is to things. number one, take advantage of the fact that we just figured out that you don't have to do anything in tokyo and make certain that everyone has the ability to do these, what used to be, you know, pacific and atlantic flights that everyone had the ability, the same ability to do these remotely. and just make certain that the clients see eye to eye with you on this. and the second thing is make certain that if you do have work from home that is not disadvantaged individuals who

have children, and in particular women. >> we have time for one more question from the audience, so feel free to drop those into the chat box that you can see. but claudia, i have one of the that i received. you mentioned your dog earlier. can you tell us about your dog? this is off the topic of your book but i know something that is very dear to your heart. >> certainly. i love to train and i love all dogs and i love to work with them in performance, in obedience rally, and my daughter turned out to be just a great -- my dog turned out to be a great center and his father lives in california. his brother lived in fact, right outside of seattle. ..

is a multilayer marketing a.

>> these are amazing. i did not be in a business school this is not the bread-and-butter stuff. i happen to have been trying the other day on these firms. and i don't know, the show did certainly seem that it was just a portion of who were preyed upon that it would be who are at home encouraged, this was a company that was telling people you could open up a boutique a closed boutique in your own home.

and if you'd only invest 10,000 dollars you could do that. that's something i will send to my friends across the river if you don't know where we are in two different cities the business schools across the river arts and sciences were i am as in cambridge. when i say shoot a question across the river it's intended to my friends at harvard business school this is an excellent excellent question about whether add something big to their family not as clear and profitable as one

might have thought a ponzi scheme just one investor loss or short claiming one once a ponzi scheme. >> a look at people mostly men of the top of large companies and 60 jobs could be done without huge amounts of hours. i think it's possible for woman to make it to the top and have kids without a primary caregiver? >> if you look at the people at the top, they are generally left. [laughter] with the exception of the mark zuckerberg. so they are generally older. i would say that there are some i think yahoo was not

going to do very well with or without the twins there are some jobs who require 24/7. and for a long time i do not want the president of my country to be a part time president. and then we had a. i felt we did have a part-time president. i know we don't have a part-time president anymore. and yes, there are going to be positions that require a tremendous amount of time. there are going to be moments in your life when you can give in instant moments in your life when you can. the issues we are talking about is couple equity rather than an individual when the

individual goes out and works super long hours. a project i am working on is called the other side of the mountain. it shows hiking is in my blood. the notion here is having a family, raising kids, is climbing up the mountain. it's a lot of work but filled with a tremendous amount of pleasure and joy. you get to the top of the mountain and the question is when your kids are in junior high school, middle school, high school, they are independent people although some may create a certain amount of trouble. can you race down the side of the mountain and to what degree can you catch up to where you thought you wanted to be?

that is what we are looking at now. the problem is the groups of individuals we are looking at who are educated in the 1990s shall we say, there individuals who are about 50 years old, 55 years old are not finding women are racing down the other side but they are not catching up. so maybe in 20 years we will do this again and discover they are because in fact there is greater couple equity. >> medicine beautiful transition to my last question for you this evening. which is what is next? what projects are you excited to take on?

and you've just given us a sneak peek i would like you to expand. >> the project i'm most excited about now is a very historical project. seventy-eight years ago, america was at war. it realized a very large fraction of the men had been drafted. the factories of america needed more labor. looking for labor all over the group that clearly could be employed were young women. young women often have young children. so 1943 america took money from an acts that was it

infrastructure bill. it took it and invested in essentially universal preschool. these were called nurseries that they were open early in the day, close late in the day. they had good food, they had nurses, they had education, they were truly preschools they were not babysitting. what we are doing is we are trying to figure out who probably went to these places. now, believe it or not even though there were several thousands of them, the government never collected information about where they were. many by the way were in seattle or i should say seattle had many. new york city had zero. and the reason is that you had to prove to the federal government that you were

producing goods for the war and you did not have enough labor to do it. and so what we are doing is looking at newspapers at the time and we are finding the addresses of where these were. and then we will be able to have using the most amazing methods we will be able to take the 1940 census to figure out which individuals were probably affected by these who were between three, or two and five and six years old. and then we can actually track them over time to today versus individuals who were similar but did not have access to these nurseries. >> wow, that sounds absolutely fascinating.

i look forward to maybe meeting you back here in a couple of years to have a conversation about that work once you've had a chance to complete it. it has been an absolute joy to speak with you this evening. i'm going to hold up your book, career and family. those who have not had a chance to read this yet, highly encourage it. i learned a tremendous amount and came away with a lot of ideas. realized i had some misconceptions really expanded my thinking. doctor golden it has been a pleasure to speak with you this evening. >> the questions that we have been discussing, we discussed some of these before, they are absolutely fascinating and of course, one never writes the full book. one only writes a little piece. >> i want to thank both of you so much for this conversation.

it has been so interesting i feel like i have learned a lot as well and i hope a lot of people feel the same. i want to think the audience as well thank you for watching and thank you for your questions if you're interested in purchasing a copy of the book i encourage you to use the link in the chat that's going to tell you you can support a local store. and i hope claudia you're able to get out to seattle sometime soon maybe if only to just go for a hike out here but thank you again for joining us and thank you for your moderation. >> if anyone was to send me a

>> raising curious well educated children outside of the conventional classroom and it is written by carrie mcdonald, ms. mcdonnell before we get into the substance of the book tell us a little bit about yourself. >> it is great to be with you i am a senior education fellow at the foundation for economic education celebrating our 76 year anniversary this year as