tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 9, 2016 7:00am-9:31am EDT
of "retirement on the rocks" looks at if americans are sufficiently saving for retirement. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning to you. it is a cold saturday in washington, d.c.. today we look -- we will spend the entire program talking by your financial health. we will discuss the increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour in california and new york and new government regulations designed to protect your retirement savings. we want to hear about your financial situation. data from the pew research center shows the middle class is tracking. how are you doing? if you feel like you are getting ahead in this economy, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you feel like you are holding steady, (202) 748-8001.
like you are falling behind, you can call us at (202) 748-8002. you can also find us on social media. facebook and twitter. it has been over eight years since the start of the great recession. -- manyways the economy people feel the recovery has yet to reach them. here could be one reason why. look at this data. it shows the share of adults living in middle-income households is falling. households fell into the middle income category. since then that number has dropped to just a few percent in 2015. that's a number of households living in middle income brackets. how does the research center actually defined middle income and upper income?
you are considered upper income by the pew research center if you make at least 72,500 targets -- $72,521 as a single person hoousehold. that number does increase as the number of people in the household increases. a family of five needs to earn 162,001 at $61 in order to be upper income. middle income, the minimum about to read is $54,000. interesting and pretty dramatic poll showing not only that the middle class is losing ground, but also that the share of income helping middle-class household has plunged. 1970's to 2014 the share of income held by middle-class families has
declined from 62% to just 43%. that number is made up by the share of income help but upper-class households. that went from 29% in 1970 to 49%, nearly half of the nation's income helping upper-class households. lower income households held pretty steady. we want to start taking your phone calls and learn about your family's financial situation. how are you faring in this economy? we start with bernie from stockton, california on the democratic line -- not the democratic line. how are you faring today? caller: my name is benny. i'm faring real bad. i did not even see my graphic. i make less than $10,000 a year through social security. i am kind of at the bottom.
i cannot pay my bills. i just was the president would increase those of social security to at least $1000. i'm not the only one that is catching hell trying to keep up with this economy. you just can't make it. e and your carpg 830 -- 800anted to thoroughly dollars -- $830 a month. host: is it your only income? caller: yes. about $830 a to month. it is hard to survive on that. host: how long did you spend working? caller: the thing is i am from
taxes. -- texas. i did a lot of logging. back then they do not have any going to social security. i did carpentry and construction work which wasn't anything taken out. bag.ft a hole in the that's the short and long of it. host: thank you for sharing with us. president obama did recently speak about the issue and about the need to create policies that improve the economic situation of people across all income spectrums. [video clip] whendent obama: politicians perpetuate a system that favors the wealthy at the expense of the middle class it is not surprising that people feel like they cannot get ahead. it is not surprising that often it's directed at the
frustration. rather than doubling down on policies that let a few big corporations or the wealthy play by their own rules, we should keep building an economy where everyone has a fair shot and everybody plays by the same rules, rather than wasteful tax loopholes we should be investing more in education and job creation and job training. lockingn tax breaks for millionaires or making it harder to actually enforce existing laws let's give tax breaks that help working families pay for child care or for college. let's stop rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas and profit overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here at home that are good corporate citizens. that is how we will build america together. that's how we battled back from this great recession. that is the story of the past seven years.
that can be the story for the next several decades if you make the right decisions right now. host: we are taking your phone calls on your family's financial situation. how are you faring in this economy? if the recovery reaching you? sun city, california. mike is calling. what is your situation? caller: my situation is rather stagnant. i think it really comes down to a difference in political philosophy. the liberal democrats believe -- and this is all we have witnessed and we are all victim bloating of government at the expense of the private sector. police think the obama administration is people depending on government. that's a total different philosophy and it is not working. it will continue not to work. for president obama to come out
and say what he just said is ridiculous. his whole political philosophy is predicated on bigger government, more bureaucrats and higher taxes. how is that going to help the middle class? host: what industry are you employed in? caller: i am retired. host: what industry did you work in? caller: i was a professional sales rep for 23 years. host: what you think the solution is for workers who are struggling with stagnant wages and can't find a job? caller: get them earned in town tax credit. don't cost jobs by increasing the minimum wage. this is all political in terms of politics to the left. it's going to hurt the working class. it will cause -- i will be
honest. as a student of the game i find it laughable that the democrats try to content there are proponents for the middle class. nothing could be further from the truth. host: we will turned out to matthews, north carolina. gloria is calling. how are you? caller: hi. can you hear me? that i thinkay the fact of the matter is when president bush got 2008 he left us with
the worst possible economy ever. and the banks went down. that was all due to a whole lot of the regulation on the banks. a whole lot of people lost a whole lot of money then. i am included in that. regulation -- under know the democrats had something to do with that too. it is not a good thing to just make it all about democrats and republicans. feel in my lifetime the economy has been up when democrats have been in power and it has been down when republicans -- it has not been
down, but when republicans are in power they always say to their base, hey, man, we are government and lower spending and everything. -- john kasich on the republican side is the only person that is selling the truth. host: we hear your thoughts this morning. let's move on to daniel calling from dan barry, connecticut. you say you are getting ahead. what has improved for you? caller: i was able to go to school and get my lpn license. there are a lot of jobs in the nursing field right now. i guess it depends on which side of the -- what kind of
profession you have that will make you able to get ahead nowadays. host: when did you go back to school? it to go back to school to get your nursing license? had you gone right into nursing after high school? caller: after high school i worked in construction for a little bit. it did not work out. wages were not what i wanted. i started out as a cna. then i went back to keep going. i got my lpn license and i'm going back to get my rn license. there is a big demand for it. you just have to look for what the demand is if you want a good job. you can't study for something and apply for a job that does not exist. host: how long did it take you to find a job after you got your lpn? months.after about four
it's kind of hard getting into, breaking into the field as a new nurse. but once you are in there is a lot of demand. once you get a little bit of experience, you have to work your way up and there is a lot of demand for it. host: that is daniel from dan barry, connecticut. this story in the washington post. one of the biggest reasons to be optimistic about the economy. the nation's workforce is growing again and encouraging turnaround following years of decline to reflect americans renewed faith in their ability to land a job. employers have been on a hiring spree in the past year. government data released earlier this month shows that has not abated overseas. the u.s. economy added 215,000 jobs last month, extending one of the longest streaks on record. the strength of the market is pulling people into the labor force. the surge of workers push the unemployment rate up slightly to
5% in march. over the past six months about 2.4 million workers began looking for a job or found one already. it represents the first increase since the recession and the fastest pace of growth in more than two decades, offering fresh evidence of the influence is finally -- of the downturn is fairly healing. host: samuel from fort worth. your situation has remained relatively steady. what has been happening? caller: hi. i recentlyn is graduated from college about a year and half ago. my situation is having graduated from college and looking to go to the field of mathematics, mostly analytics, i have been unsuccessful so far in finding a job in that field.
i have had other jobs as a temp worker to pay off my student which is a bit concerning even though it's not necessarily a bad situation. my parents are doing just as well. i'm getting a job and i'm finding it difficult to actually get ahead. you go to each college, you get a good college and you advance in your career. i find it difficult to do but i can't even get into that industry to begin with. host: we have heard a lot about college graduates who can't find a job in their field or a job that pays a decent wage. therefore they are living in the parents basements trying to save money. is that your situation? how are you trying to support your life as you search for a job? caller: i was certainly be willing to live in my parents basement if they have one. i have accepted living in a better that they have.
i am currently living with my parents as a cost-saving measure. i am not married. i don't have to spend much on income. i did spend all the money i get on paying off my student loan. once i do that i can move out. it is not that i'm particularly attached to the idea of living with my parents. there are limitations. it would be much preferable if i can live on my own. i have not had a job that pays me enough money to really justify that. what do employers tell you when you are interviewing with them for a job in your field? caller: can you repeat that? host: what are employers telling you when you interview for a job in your field about why you are not the right fit? well i consider myself
lucky if they -- if i get a response at all. i've had a couple dozen interviews with analysts positions. from the few i talked to some family friends of folk me up with a given me the spot at the interview. what i am told is a recent job i applied for the person really liked me. they said it's clear i know what i'm doing, i'm very enthusiastic, but issues with the job market. from my experience the primary difficulty is that i am competing against people who do not have jobs who are far more qualified also applying for the entry-level position. i applied for an explicitly entry-level position in the there is someone who has 15
years of experience in the industry who was obviously given the job because they are far more qualified. my understanding is a person like that should not have to feel they have to apply for an entry-level job. difficult to get into the entry because of competing with people who are also having job difficulty and also 10 years ahead of me as far as their careers concerned. host: let's leave it there so we can hear some other stories as well. the next is robert from manchester, maryland. you say you were holding steady. how are you feeling? host: i'm doing great. last year of a $93,000. i don't rent. i invested my pension. i'm driving a brand-new company truck back and forth to work. when i was younger i decided not to be poor. i took it in my own hands to advance my career in the construction trade.
i work union. everyone that tells you they are not doing good, they are not union. if you ask any older person who is retired, they will tell you it never worked union a day in their life. everyone that seems to be doing well our union workers. no one understands that. they all bad about the union. the other call you just had, he seems to be entitled. he feels he is entitled. i went to college and you only a good paying job. no one owes you anything. if you want something, you start the bottom and work your way up. i'm 45. i do really good. i do what i want. i don't understand where the recession was. host: did you experience any impact from the recession? caller: no. i could not get enough overtime. i sell my ability in my skills.
i don't inspect anything owed to me. when i go out there and do the best job i can. i show them that i earned the dollars that amy. i exceed expectations every single time. i sell myself because i am a product. ,ven though i work for somebody they are the customer. when you go to mcdonald's you are the customer. if you're selling yourself and your skills and your ability, you are selling to a customer and they expect quality work every single time. host: that is robert from maryland. our next call is roger from miami, florida. you say you don't feel it your situation is as good as it has been? caller: i don't know. many americans now it student loans. a decent chunk of my income has to go to that.
when i graduated from graduate school in 2006 the expectation was i would be making enough by now to cover that. but my income is not really changed that much over the past decade. it's a decent income. i'm not complaining about that. we need to be careful only make these kind of anecdotal personal statements about working hard. when you have millions of people that are still unemployed and those who are now finding jobs are not finding jobs at the same pay rate or the same salary they once had, that is a macroeconomic problem. individuals would be doing well and that is great, good for them. the denim of the sankey may 93,000 last year and he sells himself, that is wonderful. his personal situation is very
sunny. but when you have a macroeconomic problem like this, it is not because of individual laziness or entitlement. there is something systemic going on. i feel it has to do with the widening gap between the rich or the haves and have-nots. i do believe that the 1% if you -- they arere not sucking the life out of the economy because the of making a lot of money but they are not reinvesting it in sensible ways. rent seekingt of in washington were people are making money but not from sensible things like building cars. or building homes they are just making money for making money. it's really weird. i was reading an article about that yesterday. host: when you came out of graduate school and you started looking for jobs with you able to find a job in your field at your skill level?
did you accept a job he felt was below the level of education you had? caller: good question. the answer is sort of. i had a really great internship that i thought would lead to something that would be possible for me. but it did not. i gained a lot of skills. it was a year-long internship. he was part of a capstone. i learned a lot of skills from a lot of people. unfortunately it did not translate into higher paying jobs. i love what i do. i work in education. i work in the student services side and i love it. but i was hoping by now i would where --eadership role it would bring in more income. i am single. i don't have a family to care
for yet. but iot that burdensome, do have some concerns about saving more for retirement and things like that. host: please keep watching our show. we will be addressing american retirement security later on in the program. our next color comes from ohio. karen is up next. how you feel? what is your family's financial situation? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. we are holding steady. i feel grateful for that. wee of the other calls that -- i have been listening to, taking little pieces out of each the holdingand steady is good. steadyson we are holding is i am in a union job.
so was my husband. that is where the steadiness comes from. union jobs are down. lesson 30% of the country has a union job. leaving it to the republicans it is shrinking even more. that is where your security comes from. that is where you are going to get raises, cost of living, health insurance and all of that. as far as making the middle wage, how are people supposed to get ahead? instead of worrying about how becauses going to cost the people that are working are being paid more, we need to be worrying about how much the corporations are making from not paying minimum wage higher. sharing in the economy,
sucking it all up in the top. everyone wants private sector jobs, but it's the private sector jobs that are not paying what they are supposed to be paying. they are making lots of money and i have been lots of private sector jobs being created, but they are lower income jobs. host: we will leave it there for now. karen from ohio. ohio is a critical state in this year's presidential election. economic anger has been motivating many voters. here is a clip from bernie sanders speaking in wisconsin on tuesday. he talked about income inequality and the shrinking of the middle class. [video clip] >> and today, coast-to-coast and i have been from coast-to-coast. i've been in california and maine and a whole lot of data between. people are saying why is it in america we have grotesque levels
of income and wealth inequality? why is it that the top 1/10 of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? why is it that for the last 30 years the great middle class of this country has been shrinking and only wealth is going to the top 1%? host: we are taking your phone calls on your family's financial situations. have you been able to get ahead in this economy and this long simmering recovery? from twitter one person right, " the middle class has decreased. computerization makes jobs obsolete due to task efficiency by less people." another person writes, "the economy has recovered so little it's hard to see if anything has improved at all." "holding steady.
younger son graduating next month in college. selling house to downsize. that will take a load off." " i feel like they are getting ahead. restaurant and auto wholesale to the sudden jump up this past year." bill is our next color. what is your situation? caller: i am getting ahead. host: do you feel like things are better? caller: it's getting a lot better. the housing market is picking up. -- so many houses houses for sale from the recession we had and the housing problem. there was so much inventory on the open market. they are finally getting rid of all these bad loans and inventory of houses. we are starting to see a better economy because the housing market is picking up. the fed is trying to help as far as keeping is just rates down and help people qualify for loans.
i think it will get better hopefully. host: feel the -- do you own a home? caller: i'm invested in real estate. i have a construction company. there will always be good times and bad times but you have got to try to -- when it becomes bad you to try some -- save some money. you have to try to take a certain part of your money and realize you've got to save some. when it comes to hard times you are not looking for a handout or looking for somebody to help you. you have got to help yourself most of the time. if you don't help yourself, you will not help your family. when you leave this earth you want to try to make sure your family's life is better than what you had it. you have to get up every day and work hard. that is what you were going for. if you don't want to make money, you can sit home and try not to do nothing. but you have to try to get out there everyday and hustle. florida.r comes from
you feel like your situation is not as strong as it used to be? earlier,s i mentioned i am a retired baptist minister. i have not received a i understand why the end of the board did it and why i will not get a raise. i do not understand the reasoning for not receiving a raise for my social security. out thatmation was put the reason they didn't is because a gasoline had gone down. back then, gasoline was a dollar 65 a gallon. security andal asked, does this mean i will get
a raise in my check now? gasoline has gone up and that was the only reason. no, that will not be wouldidered until what take effect next january. have pastored-- i small churches. i have a small retirement compared to many people, it is very small. however, we have made it. one of the reasons we have made for soon of 10 years, i have been working part-time at publix as a cashier. host: and your retirement is naturally a retirement. caller: the reason i work at publix is to put food on the table. the congressman who voted, you
are in washington, argue? host: yes. caller: all right. you know what has happened. you know how congress voted themselves and automatic raise. i forgot the percentage. they get a nice percentage raise every january 1 without even voting on it. they voted that into law years ago. us seniors, we are at their mercy. they get richer, and richer, and richer. and here we are, struggling, day after day. now, i have a car that is nine years old next month. i have 60,000 miles on it. pricew much did the gas going down give me money? not much.
you know i don't drive much. congress had people in who had some brains. apparently, when they go to congress, they leave those at home. host: all right, harry, from jacksonville, florida. we want to make sure we get in all of our callers. thank you for sharing your story. claudia from massachusetts is up next. claudia, go ahead. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: hello. i am in between. it took quite a bit of work to get to where i am. i feel-like i am in a fragile situation for a could fall apart in a minute. secure asel-like i am a middle class. i feel-like one major catastrophe can wipe it all away. host: is that because you have
not been able to build a savings buffer? caller: i have built a savings. i am divorced. i did have to go through a bankruptcy. i have rebuilt and did what i was supposed to do. i put a ton of money and to retirement. i have a cushion. but having gone through unemployment and seeing how fast when you are unemployed, how , thatou lose everything sticks with you. it does not go away and it has created the sense of fear, one loss of aess, one job, one that traffic accident, i could wipe out everything i have done. i could be overthinking the situation. but i do not feel secure. when i talk to other people in similar situations, there is still a lot of that fear that
all it takes is one thing and you are done. host: claudia, thank you. next is michael from connecticut. what is your situation? caller: holding steady. feels mike i am doing well. i'm doing well. i feel-like claudia that he can be wiped out at any time. the main point that a lot of are making is that the top earners are raking in lots of money, and not paying their fair share of taxes. the cards are stacked in their favor and everybody knows it. it seems ike and unsustainable system. -- it seems liked and unsustainable system. anit seems like unsustainable system. i am astonished that $24,000 is
concerned -- is considered middle income. host: all right, michael, from connecticut. ted cruz was on the trail recently and spoke in wisconsin last friday talking about the two lower taxes and deregulate to boost the economy. to taketed cruz: i want a minute and talk to single moms who are working 2, 3 part-time jobs and had your hours forcibly reduced 29 hours a week. obama -- obamacare kicks in at 30 hours a week. i want to talk to the truckers, plumbers, electricians, union members, working men and women with calluses on your hand. wages stagnating year after year after year. cost of living keeps going up.
yet, somehow your paycheck does not seem to keep pace. i want to talk to the young people coming out of school with student loans up your eyeballs. scared, am i going to get a job? what does the future hold for me? the mainstream media tries to tell us, this is the new normal. this is as good as it gets. let me tell you, that is an absolute lie. it host: we have in taking your calls on your family's financial situation. how are you doing in this economy? next color is tessa -- next caller is tessa. you say you don't bill liked your situation is as good as it used to be? caller: not at all. host: why is that? ,aller: as a senior citizen
and can'tre disabled make it on $800 a month. either caller saying you don't raise the minimum wage. i don't think they have to say unless they had to put their kids to bed hungry. it is so unfair. i have been catapulted in the dark side of the digital divide. if you have access to credit, you can get by. sheer sacrifice. but then when the credit is gone and you try to live on just $800 a month, it can't be done. host: tessa, what can you do to stretch that dollar and make ends meet? caller: i have to go to the food bank and jump through so many hoops and put out so many fires
just to exist. stress that it has done, and you know what stress does. you scrape by. that is what you do. we have not gotten a raise or social security in three years. host: all right, that is tessa in sofitel, washington. jeffrey from tennessee. caller: i wasn't bad, bad shape. we are holding now and steadily growing. i would liked to talk to some of the people out there who vote against their own interests. when reagan came in and busted the unions and they kept voting for the republicans, the unions are the ones that build the
schools and factories. the money is going to the top. ted cruz is talking about when he is going to do for the people. he voted against women's rights, and minimum wage and everything for the working class. folks, -- e young host: all right. caller: we got to work together as americans, not as republicans or democrats. that is the only way we are going to get back to living wages. host: you might be interested in this chart from the pew research center that shows how democrats and republicans view the current economy. it shows that republicans, only
21% of them believe that economic conditions in the country today are excellent or good. 38% of democrats who believe the economy is performing well. so, democrats have a more optimistic view of the economy than republicans currently. lou from colorado springs. what are your thoughts? caller: hi. i am retired. i am 60 years old. my wife and i got married early and renew at an early age to do for ourselves. we come from a low-middle class family. we realized in the beginning to buy our money and always stuff and not take out loans. mitchell you have the money to
pay for it, i tell my children that. sure you have the money to pay for it, i tell my children that. life to sacrifice a lot in to raise my family, which most of my life, i only made $50,000 a year. but even with that, i own my house free and clear and have no loans. it can be done. i had to sacrifice a lot. 60,d to sacrifice working 65, 70 hours a week. my children going up, i missed a lot of that. vacations, it was years and years of no vacation. i worked on vacation -- i worked my vacations. people should realize that you have to save and don't think
when they say, oh, the gases down, you have money in your pocket, trust me, it is going to come out of the other pocket somewhere down the line. something will be taken from you. there is always something down the line that will take your money. you really have to say. -- you really have to save. i sacrificed my life for my kids. i hope there life is easier than my life was. host: that easily from colorado springs -- that is lee from colorado springs. next is kathleen. caller: good morning. i would liked to comment on the gentleman that just called. i grew up poor in a chicago housing project. i grew up on welfare. hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i grew up poor and the chicago housing project.
i was always told to get an education. if you get an education, you will do fine and life. to the previous caller about meetgling and making ends and living within your means. he is 100% right. on, i wasme has gone the 1990's,ack in got a ged, and got an associate degree for jury design. i was making $30,000 a year. now, i went back to college and got another decree in three dimensional drafting. i can't find a job in three-dimensional drafting and that is a high technical field. there is not a lot of people who do that. they only due to dimensional drafting. i doubt i can only get a job overseas in hong kong, singapore . it is ridiculous.
that i have been trying to get -- i have a patent that i have been trying to get manufactured in the united states. you know what they said? you can get it done in china. we can't help you. this is american manufacturing telling me to go overseas to get my invention manufactured. we've lost our way and things have gone overseas. unless we -- kathleen, we almost out of time. we have one more color to get in and that will be richard from nashville, tennessee. tell us about your situation. caller: good morning. most callers were right. i voted republican most of my life and is pretty much independent. the reason i think donald trump is echoing what a lot of medical
america is wanting is we want our jobs back and our borders controlled so we can know that our children, the lady that just called, i am the same way. i just paid off my home loan last year. but my job is in jeopardy every day. youcompany i work for hires part-time 18 hours a week. insurance,pay car buy food, and by all the things you need to do just to survive a minimum wage. you have to have these benefits. lawsst states, they pass that are in the interest of big corporations. it is a snowball effect. what i would suggest that everyone do is quit by $40,000 cars and get back to family.
it is just i get your churches, they are just buildings without the people. it is we the people. host: we are out of time. we will continue our discussion about the economy in our next segment. coming up, california and new york approved plans this week to raise the state hospital wage to minimumur -- state's an hour.15 i stay tuned. ♪ >> a signature feature of book tv on c-span2 is taking you to book fairs across the country.
weekend, we travel to the university of southern california for the 21st annual los angeles times a symbol of books. one of the most celebrated book festivals in the u.s. our live coverage starts today ad 1:30 eastern time featuring national security with sarah and her book "these of state." women in politics with nancy c ohen. on sunday at 1:30 p.m. eastern, more from the l.a. times festivals of books featuring discussions with. huffington. of "dennis prager author the 10 commandments, still the best have to follow." and a discussion of religion and politics.
go to book tv.org for the complete schedule. tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the c-span series "landmark cases: historic supreme court decisions." it explores constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> this is a case about presidential power. bookg times of war, and a that puts central things of that may not be in the constitution. the case has come to be accepted by the culture. >> it was a sweeping decision. it isolated the u.s. as one of
only four nations of 195 across the globe that allowed abortion. is roe versus, it -- itthe k-fed determined allowed states to restrict the right based on the viability of a fetus. watch "landmark cases" at 10:00 eastern on c-span and www.c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are talking now about the minimum wage in california and new york recently passed bills to raise their state minimum wage to $15 in our. is dennislk about cooper. he attended georgetown university. socialertise is in
mobility. our other guest is james sherk. he is a labor economics research fellow. he got his bachelor's and economics and mathematics from hillsdale college. thank you, guys so much. david, i would liked to start with you. just by having you explain exactly how will these laws work in california and new york? guest: both of these states pass these laws in short order. the california bill raises the state minimum wage gradually up to $15 and hour by 2022. during that time period, there will be an adjustment. the built in mechanisms so the governor has the ability to slow down the increase if they find that the increase is not working and the way they anticipated
. in new york, similar thing. state and him him wage -- state minimum wage will go up to $15 21 21 -- by 2021. wage upstate will hour.lly get to $15 per host: and you work for the economic policy institute which is a left-wing organization. do you support this increase that ? guest: we support those. they are bold and bigger than what we have done in the past. the reality is a lot of the minimum wage increases over the last 30 years have been too timid. we have never raised the minimum wage an up to undo the erosion.
low-wage workers today and most of the country are making less than their counterparts made a generation ago. that is a function of the fact that we have not out of every raised the minimum wage. what california and new york are doing are taking steps to try to inequality for most workers in the country. this could totally change the norms around the wing we think about minimum wage -- around the way we think about minimum wage. host: every worker once a raise all the time. what is the argument against the loss? guest: it has to be based on the worker's underlined the nativity. -- productivity. this is a reckless wage. it will change the debate over minimum wages because people will look back, look at the harm this will cause.
just entry-level workers, but mid-level workers. if you're looking at fresno, california, the urban areas -- $15 and hour, you are talking bank tellers, preschool teachers, emergency medical technologies -- technicians. it will cause immense damage. host: break it down for us. raising minimum wage could prevent workers are getting any job you did explain that? guest: as long as the additional revenue they bring into the company is not higher than did not they have to pay them. they are not going to take a loss in hiring a worker in pay you $50 and hour if you are only bringing in -- 15 dollars and hour if you are only making $12 an hour.
an example, one worker thought she would be getting a higher wage. she was thrilled until she realized her hours were being cut to eight hours a day. at the end of the day, her take ok would lower for the minimum wage hike. it is very important to be sensible about how we do it and make sure the policies actually work. case thathink the james is raising of nonrepresentative over the vast majority. all the research that has been done -- we have a lot of experience with minimum wage increases. the rage the minimum wage 22 times since its inception. we have had 75 increases.
all of that research shows no matter what you look at the effects on jobs, low-wage workers take home more at the end of the year. the effect that james is talking about with the cutback in hours, the low-wage labor market has a lot of turnover. if you raise the minimum wage, they stick around longer, they are more productive, their business benefits because they don't have to spend recruiting new workers. there is less churn and moving from job to job. that may manifest as fewer job opportunities over the course of a year because there is not as much swapping job to job.
the reality is once they get that job, they are making so much more per hour that at the end of the year, they are better off because for the hours they have worked, they have so much more. when the top about where we should set the minimum wage, we have to think about the fact -- the point is to get the minimum weight to the level that they are better off. and hour called $15 reckless. feel there should not be a minimum wage at all? guest: it should be set at a level that will not cost workers jobs. there is a resource that came out recently from two economists and if they did something that the vast majority of minimum wage studies don't do. they tracked the same workers every time. most of the data is looking at a
snapshot of workers and no tracking before and after. they look at workers making minimum wage making six dollars in our. they tracked the workers overtime over the next two years. for those workers who were making minimum wage, their average monthly incomes after the hike dropped by $150 a month. -- there was an earnings experience. because they were spending more time out of the job market, they were not able to move up and gain experience. it was making it harder for workers to do it. those workers were coming up
behind. we have to be very careful how we do this so we are not hurting james ispirit guest: right. the study is unique. it is the only study of dozens of studies that have come to this conclusion. they use a different method. they are looking at a time period -- 2007 to 2009. the labor market was not good at that time. to draw conclusions of the federal minimum wage increase from 2007 to 2009 is really problematic because that is when the great recession is starting. that one not take paper and generalize and say this paper is representative of all the effects of minimum wage when we have been studying it for decades. host: let's bring our viewers into the conversation. you can call in and ask a question or share a story. here are the numbers to dial -- if you are a minimum weight on her, you can call us at
202-748-8000. if you are a business owner you can call us at 202-748-8001. all others, your likeness 202-748-8002. let's get in victor from silver spring, maryland. caller: good morning. deathbsolutely scared to of what is going to happen in the future. i am legally blind and i need help when i go shopping. up, theinimum wage goes businesses are going to go automation to make it impossible for a blind person to operate whatever has to be operated without a human being. i would liked to know how many jobs were lost in seattle? how many restaurants close down? maryland andunty, the district are talking about a -- 15 hour minimum wage
dollar and our minimum wage. pizza ifop ordering this nonsense continues. people who are starting at the very bottom, there will be no jobs for those people. host: james sure, from the heritage foundation. a verythe gentleman has good point about automation. of workers goes up, it makes it more cost effective for businesses to use labor-saving technology. restaurants may simply go to tablet ordering. the restaurant in japan is
staffed almost completely by robots. jobs in the hotel industry are very susceptible to automation. there is a device called the alpha that can cook 300 hour.ger patties an the only human intervention required is to set it up. investments,ensive which is why were not seeing them now. but if you force the minimum wage up so high, you will make it a lot more affordable. for the workers that are a lot less skilled, we are looking at a risk of people losing our jobs.
ller asked about seattle after they implemented minimum wage. -- the chart shows that when the minimum wage went into a tight, jobs and employment went down in seattle. the job losses between april and december of 2015 with a worse over a nine-month period since the great recession. david cooper, what is your response? guest: this chart has been debunked. the data they were using was not valid. this whole discussion about automation is just scare tactics. technology is always improving. technology does change the composition of jobs, but it does not change the total number of jobs. at m.i.t.searcher
looked at this very closely. shown,s research has yes, technology does replace certain jobs, but at the same time, it is replacing certain certainit is creating jobs and new opportunities for folks. the net effect is that they cancel each other out. we could create a ton of jobs if we outlawed bulldozers. but that is not something that people think we should do. meanstivity growth is the to which we can raise living standards for everyone. the only way that growth translates into living standards is if we adopt labor standards to ensure whatever the lowest paid job is is that it pays a decent wage. that is the crux of it. there is always going to be a lowest paid job. we have to ensure that job provides a living wage. guest: i think in the aggregate,
technology does not restore jobs. what happens with the minimum wage is you are encouraging the replacement of a low skilled jobs. a job that would not otherwise be automated. now, those from workers enough jobs will find difficulty because employers will be looking to automate and replace them. they would make investments that they would not otherwise make. it is one thing if you have a gradual transition path. but when you are suddenly forcing companies to go -- a tags.xample would be rfid they have the technology then rather than having a cashier, you can recover your items individually, they have the ability to push your cart
through and everything in your cart calculated. the reason they have not adopted that yet is it is expensive. it is cheaper for the stores to have a human worker do this. to 15 -- $15 an will push people of the labor market. trying to accelerate the pace of automation through a minimum wage hike will be harmful to the people that david and i want to help. beckett another caller and from scottsdale, arizona. alan, you are a business owner. what you make of this debate? i appreciate c-span and how much i really enjoy watching every day in the morning. both of question is to
these gentlemen, have you ever owned a business? yes or no? that is my first question. guest: no. guest: no i have not. host: allen, go ahead. caller: ok, if apples are two dollars a pound today, and we go $15 ana pound, what is hour going to get? as a business owner for 15 years, when i talk to my customers, they are already paying $15 an hour right now. hour to a5 an businessman who want to automate? equipmenth $86,000 of to automate his facility and a five year lease. i know what i am talking about. here is where i am at. it is not about minimum wage in
this country. bernie sanders has it right. it is about a revolution. the problem is with bernie sanders is he is at the opposite end of common sense, and this is where i am at. theow it is all about of loring the cost of living -- lowering the cost of living for every american. how do we lower the cost of living? we could have revolutionary energy in this country that makes us the lowest cost producing country in the world. when we get down to one dollar a gallon, we are so low compared to anyone else in the world, we compete with them on the energy side, and that saves all kinds of money in producing food, products, everything. the other side to it is
government is destroying our country. alan, weall right, will leave it there. let's hear from bernie sanders. he was on the campaign trail in wyoming and discuss minimum wage. [video clip] >> if we were here in this beautiful auditorium five years ago and somebody would jump up and say, you know, i think a seven dollar -- a $7.25 minimum wage is a foundation wage and has to be raised to $15 an hour. someone stood up five years ago and said to that -- if someone would have stood of five years ago and said that, they would say, you are not! to nine will get it up dollars an hour. sound familiar?
you are unrealistic. it can't be done. think small. happened is fast food workers, people working at mcdonald's, people working at burger king, people working at , went out on strike. i was proud to join those workers in washington. [applause] and they went out and said, the low americans, the can't live on $7.25 an hour. you have to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. host: david, what is your reaction? we need to have jobs to pay enough for people to live on.
in the united states in 2016, there is no justification why workers today should beginning paid less than the counterparts were a generation ago. if we want this elemental fairness where folks can live on aat they are earning from full-time job, we need to raise the minimum wage. at the same time, it is good for the economy. we need to have folks with enough money to go out and spend. the caller that we had made a good point. we need to have wages high enough so folks can afford the cost of living. the cost of living is high in a lot of places. if you want people to afford the things they need without government assistance, we need to set standards that every job pays at least it off for folks to have a decent quality of life. hour the is $15 an right amount for federal minimum wage? guest: i think there are a lot of weston's about what the
federal minimum wage -- a lot of questions about where the federal minimum wage should be. the most recent proposal would raise the federal minimum wage $12 an hour. could we go higher than that? it is possible. states that have higher cost of living should be setting targets higher than that. but the bottom line is let's get the federal minimum wage at a level where it is out of the burden. host: the current job and the weight climate is forcing people to an underground cash market to survive. how does that affect the economy? guest: i think the cost of living is really hard. -- is really high. i think raising the minimum wage is a counterproductive and harmful approach.
who started careers and found 55% of americans started their career working with one dollar minimum wage. you get productivity and work your way up the ladder and can at higher pay and working went to a higher income job. you're productivity is less, how can you work your way up? you are cutting the bottom rung off of the career ladder. raising the minimum wage is the wrong way to fix the problem. cornell is calling from kansas city, kansas. what is your question or comment? guest: i will lead to ask james a question. whati want to ask him is
is he making right now? people want to put other people down when they need more to live on. if you got a job, and most of the people who work at fast food have been there a long time. workings how much he is -- ask james how much he is making right now? guest: i certainly will not discuss that on national television. why san francisco is so -- why san francisco so expensive to live? the answer is housing regulations. in phase ike houston and dallas, houston and like dallas, housing is relatively affordable.
the city of san francisco has the ability to ease up on zoning restrictions. that would significantly reduce the cost of living to moderate income workers without the threat of losing jobs. we have tons of regulations that drive up food prices. a typical family would save hundreds of dollars a year in food and grocery costs if we got rid of these policies. upre are policies that drive the cost of living. let's fix that. that would make it more affordable for americans to get by and allow them to stretch their dollars farther. it would do it in a way that doesn't cost their jobs, and
isn't going to make it harder are people too work their way up. host: let's hear from george from detroit, michigan. george, go ahead. are you there? mikeight, let's turn to from brooksville, florida. mike, are you there? guest: yes i am. host: what are your thoughts of the minimum wage at go caller: the problem of raising it, you have a situation where -- the problem is it is not going to raise the minimum wage, everybody in the line that is there is going to say if you raise his pay, i want a raise. this is going to cause -- everything is going to go up to buy. instead of buying bread for two dollars and loaf, now it will be
seven dollars a loaf. everything is going to adjust itself up because that is the only way a businessman can turn around and justify to pay somebody coming in at $15 an hour. if a guys making $22 an hour because he has been 15 years. host: all right. be a dogt will catching its tail. we need to think about -- host: david cooper, your response. guest: this is a really important point. the gentleman is correct that when you raise the minimum wage, other workers will want raises. said this an analogy is cutting off the bottom rung of the wage ladder. the minimum wage is the wage floor upon the latter of all wages set. if you raise the minimum wage, you are visiting the entire
ladder. the fact that we have not raise the floor is liked it is eroding the ground. consequence, we have not raise t minimum wage. folks will want to make more and they should have been making more decades ago. but because we have not changed the policy, they are making less. and on the point of rising prices, it is true if you raise the minimum wage, some businesses will have to respond by raising prices. but the magnitude of these price increases are very small relative to what folks are getting as an increase in pay. looked atecent study san jose. this is a great case because san jose is a relatively small area where the memo wage increase took effect and it was a very large increase. they raised the minimum wage for the 5% overnight. -- 25% overnight. they took menu prices from
restaurants inside and outside the city both before and after the minimum wage increase. what they found was after the 25% increase in the minimum wage, restaurants increase their prices by 1.5%. 25% increase in everyone's pay, a 1.5% increase and restaurants. that is a tremendous improvement in people's purchasing power. they can afford that increase in pricing. host: james, you're shaking your head is david cooper was speaking. guest: if you are looking at san jose, this is an area of very high rent. a huge portion of the typical restaurant cost will be much more than fresno, california or other areas in the state.
san jose in the heart of silicon valley, point to that in say this is representative. the restaurant industry is a fairly bad industry to look at. where it isndustry not going to decline all that much. most restaurant servers are getting paid off of our tips. a lot of these restaurants are responding are saying, all right, you may be getting the wage plus tips, but we are going to take away tips and at a service charge. the service charge will be attacked on to the bill. -- the service charge will be tacked on to the bill. it is not changed all that much. some of the servers are losing out because they are not getting additional tips. in an industry were all you are applying a tipping model and
basing that in the hourly wage, you would not expect to see a huge increase. if you look nationwide, we did a study two years ago of the fast food industry. we look at nationwide costs. we analyzed how much would they have to raise prices to stay in business? 38% was annd, increase in the fast food industry. do people buy fast food? because it is inexpensive. expensive, longer an you buy less. fast fast food services would lose sales. was 30% in the fast food industry if you're looking at a nationwide average. guest: i think that is mumbo-jumbo. we have studies on prices of the minimum wage. tons of people have looked at
this. for 10% increase in minimum wage, it increases prices by less than 1%. for james to manufacture this number of 38% is divorced from reality. we have been raising the minimum wage many times before and never observed these kinds of affect james is talking about. it is throwing out garbage. all, mostst of businesses are not paying minimum wage, so most businesses are not affected. -- a coffee a look store in san francisco, they survived when starbucks came in to the market. they offered a product customers liked. when the minimum wage increase took effect, they found they were simply not able -- they raised prices.
they weren't having any higher revenues. when it came time to a new their lease, -- when it came time to renew their lease, they could not afford it. our -- herember for is information on california's law for the national conference of state legislators. the new law increases the byimum wage to $15 per hour january 2022 for businesses with 26 or more employees. wouldss, the minimum wage 1ach $15 per hour by january 2023. increases may be caused by the governor's or budgetary conditions exist. the minimum wage is indexed annually for inflation.
next color is alan from warren, ohio. what are your thoughts? questionames, i have a . do we really have a number on how many minimum wage workers there are in america? guest: the bureau of labor statistics reported every year. you can google it. out.numbers are they show workers at minimum wage and labor's below minimum wage. below minimum wage are tipped employees. you can google characteristics of minimum wage workers for the bureau of labor statistics. about one million to 2 million. host: in california, the los angeles times estimate in behalf
of workers stand to get a raise under california's in a household income that is twice the party threshold are below. the estimate that more than a third have children. , the averageasian worker who would get a pay bump under the governor's proposal. let's take another caller. andi from warsaw, virginia. about wagesou say raised to $15 per hour. hurt me, but id don't think it would hurt my employers. i have two jobs. i work in security. and i worked at a retirement community. the retirement place, the homeowners would see a raise in their homeowner's fees because
there are guards their 24/7. -- itld help me amount would help me a lot. guest: there are two points. is just talking about with the bureau of labor statistics report. the report is only describing folks at the federal minimum wage at $7.25 or below. there are 29 states that a raise their minimum wage above the federal rates. if 50% are in places that have thatr wages more than $7.25. the report is not saying anything about those workers. when you talk about who that policy is relevant to, we are not just talking about people at memo wage. you have to think about folks a little bit above minimum wage. when we start looking at people making eight dollars per dollar -- a dollars per hour, those stereotypeot fit the
of being teenagers working their first job. these people are older people. the average age that would benefit is 35 years old. only 10% are teenagers. that would help 35 million people. that is a quarter of the u.s. workforce. to try to minimize his policy issue is just being relevant to just teenagers at $7.25 is a gross oversimplification. the second point, and this entire conversation we had been having, businesses will have to adjust to higher labor costs. we know we can do that through some price increases. they also see cost savings through lower turnover. when you raise the minimum wage, there is a shifting of a lot of income for people who are likely to spend those dollars right away. you are giving people, liked randy, to give more money to spend. spend,as more money to
businesses will have more customers coming through the door. we have to take into account the fact that yes, there are going to be higher labor costs in some industries, but there will be more economic activity. that offsets a lot of these increases and labor losses. host: donald trump was speaking with fox news recently and he discussed the impact of minimum wages on u.s. competitiveness. verynimum wage is a very, complex situation because we are a noncompetitive country. if you look at what is going on throughout the world, one of the big problems are wages. i am going to make our country so competitive that people at minimum wage are going to escape the minimum wage. there went to make a lot of money and have companies and be involved with companies that can pay them more and more money. raising memo wage, you will make companies more
noncompetitive. i want to bring jobs back from china. i want to bring just that from mexico, host: we are with david cooper from the economic institute. does raging the minimum wage contribute to the outsourcing of american jobs? caller: i think donald trump is incorrect. it's at a level that's not relevant for the manufacturing industry. they are usually above seven dollars an hour. hour,ou get up to $15 an california is proposing the highest min wage in the world. it's higher than what france has put in place. in real terms inusting for inflation at,
san francisco it's $11 an hour. is australiaest and that's around $11.15 an hour. france is a bit below that. younger a place for workers. affect about ao third of all manufacturing jobs in california. what they cannot do is say we are going to raise prices. if you're a hotel or security guard it, you can pass those costs on. the manufacturers are selling in a global market. we are starting to see this in los angeles. 45,000 dollars in the garment manufacturing industry. after elliott announced their industry, a lot of those of said
we can't absorb this price increase. afford $15 an hour as a starting wage. we can't pass that on to the consumer. we are going to have to move. i think we're going to see that in california. i am in washington state and i think we are at $9.40 an hour. we have gone up several times. i've been on both spectrums. the biggest thing i have noticed , i don'tgton state know who lives in seattle and was saying all that stuff. straightjust playing wages. it's not fair to consumers to
pay their wages and get nailed for a bunch of money. it hasn't really affected our economy. there are tons of people out there working minimum-wage jobs. nomcdonald's, they have problem payment. hour, iee that $15 an did not start at the minimum wage. i started at $10 an hour based on experience. , i did it goetter up to as much as $20 an hour. thing.s a good i would never strictly pay the minimum wage because you can't live on the minimum wage anymore prepared as a single mother, i had to raise kids and work three jobs often. for the gentleman at the
heritage foundation, i would like to ask you, do you think you can live on minimum-wage right now? could you pay your student loans? i have $72,000 in student loans. how is this going to work? let me know if you can make it on and him. host: that was soanya. guest: it's very tough to get by on the minimum wage. i think there is a lot the government can do to stop the cost of living from going higher. country,areas in the it's ridiculous. that is because of the zoning laws. we could make cars more affordable. account for it.
there is no need for this. there is a lot we can do to help them stretch the dollar further. policy't want to adopt a that's going to give them no income whatsoever. one of the restaurants in the -- seattle.nner -- he was excited about hearing about the minimum wage. the restaurant had to close because they could not afford the higher wages. they all lost their jobs. helpingught they were us, they're making it harder. we don't want to do that. host: alberto, go ahead. country, at one time people used to make $10 a week. can you hear me? $10 a week.to make
they can pay rate and by food. week ande make $500 a they can't find an apartment. it's a sham. they are going to take the money back that they give you. it, they areg talking about the american dream . they don't tell you how much it costs. that's how much you need to pick up for a mortgage. david cooper, one of the lingering issues in this recovery has been wage stagnation. wages have not grown much. increase a part of that? guest: absolutely.
over the last two business cycles, most of the job growth was in low-wage jobs. policies like the minimum wage are a lot more relevant today. minimumure to raise the wage has been keeping wages flatlined for the vast majority of workers. it's meant that wages have fallen. in the past year, there were 12 states that raise the minimum wage through legislative increases and 11 through these automatic indexes of minimum wages. we actually saw strong wage growth at the bottom of the wage distribution for workers paid close to the minimum. raise it, it was flat. this is a policy that has a fixed. it does live wages for people. we need to do it if we want to see wage growth in this economy.
that's the big problem. had we -- the federal minimum wage back in the 1950's, it would be about $10 an hour a day. that's a great point. this talk about 15, it seems like a large increase. we haveause of how low let the federal minimum wage go. place -- pacet with wage growth, it would be about $11 an hour. had it kept pace with productivity growth, it would be closer to $19 an hour today. there is a huge gap between where it could have been and where it is today. the question people are facing and i think it's fair, hadley get it back to a level that's appropriate. we let it fall so far. we are not entirely sure how to do that. is there an argument for
indexing? the things to keep in mind is the real minimum is always zero. if you say that when you raise the minimum wage you have an overall reduction in employment and among workers earning memo wage. thatber of studies show employers want the greatest bang for the buck. were previously at the minimal wage had lower skills and they lose out. just to say that we will raise wage distribution, that's for workers who have jobs. for those who don't have jobs, they are not getting anything. you are making life a lot more difficult. research done on this.
what economists find is when you adjust the minimum wage for inflation, you get a larger employment response and more jobs are lost. the reason for that they found is the firms expect this as permanent. i have to adjust my business model. they made those investments. they might have said before it's $86,000 ont spending a machine. indexing for inflation is something that makes policy that can be quite harmful to workers trying to get started off. let's get it a few more caller questions. keith is in florida. you are a minimum-wage worker. where do you follow this debate?
caller: i would just like to say something about the comment about having $72,000 in debt for school. are you there? that's a straw man argument. if you have $72,000 in debt, you should have a good degree. they should've picked a better major and not spent that much money on liberal arts degrees. wage big problem is the federal minimum wage. set the memo wage so you can live in new york, your routing the economy where i live in florida. we have a lower standard of living.
set it at florida's, you are hurting new york because they can't live off that money. the states should set it. i am the best advocate for what i can make. i believe in the free market system. i just got a minimum wage job. security and i'm tired of gardening. i got a cashier job part-time. i did not discuss wages. i wanted to let them see what i could do and let them come back. $8.05 is the minimum wage here in florida. the majority of people working minimum-wage jobs are kids and people supplementing their income. other people should be having career goals. they are not advancing themselves.
in the 80's when we took away all the raw materials, -- we mightg jobs get assembly jobs back. we don't have the people to work it really. people need to get better degrees and search for that. host: we are almost out of time. what is your response? the idea of the minimum wage as a starting out wage, i think that's fine if you think of it that way. if you look it where it has been 60'srically, in the late as a share of a typical worker in the economy, it was about 55%. and minimum-wage worker was earning 55% of a typical worker. it's worth only 36% of the wages of a typical worker.
even if you think the wages a starter wage, what we have done today is put those workers in a position with a are starting off further from a middle-class income than they would have been a generation ago. it's harder for them to get into the middle class. have states that we that would never raise the federalwage if the government didn't do it. five states have no minimum wage at all. there needs to be a minimal quality of life regardless of where people live. if states need to set there is higher, they should be allowed to do that. host: this is our last caller. i was watching the previous segment and discussing social security increases. they have been nonexistent for several years. it's based on the cost of living. i assume minimum wages based on
the cost of living also. wise it not justifiable to raise social security? host: we will hear from the heritage foundation. guest: the minimum wage is fairly arbitrary. that's actually how they came up with $15 an hour. it wasn't an economic and our assistant what intuit. it was what the union thought was a good marketing push. california just adopted the highest minimum wage in the world. i think it's going to harm a lot of workers in that state. i think what we need to keep in mind is you are going to have
different living costs. some states have never passed the minimum wage. it doesn't cost all that much to live in alabama relative to new york and california. it makes more sense to allow states to set their own minimum wage. if cal of what he wants to adopt hopefully we would back on this in six years and see what's happened. i think it's going to be widely recognized that this has hurt the poor. thank you both so much for joining us. next, we will talk to christian weller. he is the author of the book retirement on the rocks. new rulesk about the protecting your retirement savings. we will be right back.
was womanial manpower power. stoppingf women were my advance across the world. >> this 1944 war department phone documents how women in world war ii helped the war effort. they were a main reason why germany lost the war. daughters of the american revolution museum marking the 125th anniversary of the organization. >> one thing that stands out is the creation of this imagery of the a posse us.
this goes back to ancient times when a warrior is made godlike by lifting him up and celebrating him. >> washington and jefferson are the most prominent examples of slaveholding. james madison who followed jefferson as the fourth president owned over 100 slaves and held a special to occupied the white house. prefix -- 3/5he compromise. the south held in influence on congress to uphold slavery. the 12 american presidents who were slave owners, eight of
them while in office. for the schedule, go to www.c-span.org. washington journal continues. us now ising christian weller. he is the author of the book retirement on the rocks. he is also a public policy professor. the white house has new rules targeting the conflict of interest between financial advisors who help americans plan for retirement. what would these rules do? guest: we need to take a step back. that many people
prepared for retirement outside of so security for a pension plan from their employer. the employer done with the financial service industry and people invested the money. we'vehe past 30 years, moved to sink or swim retirement plans. 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts. people have to figure out how to invest the money and how much to pay in terms of fees. the distinction between a 401(k) and an ira is very critical. are with employers. there is a lot of regulatory structure and legal structure to make sure that the employers are doing the best they can for their employees. they have lowest fees and lowest risks. on the iras, they have been
growing very quickly. that same structure doesn't apply. that is the individual that happens to negotiate a multitude of different investment options. fidelityypically with or another brokerage. money andere is my you tell me what i should invest in. problem is the rules that govern iras in particular are weaker than the rules that protect individuals in a 401(k). this new rule is trying to address that. it's trying to strengthen consumer protections. it it says the standard to which we hold the people who give the advice, if you go to the bank and say this is $100,000 and i want to invest that, the rules that govern that advice are being strengthened.
there are two things here. the rule has a lot of different pieces to it. ups the standard. it raises the bar to which we hold the advisors. giving advice are on how people should invest, you are being held to the same standard that someone who gives advice to a 401(k). the distinction is here that it used to be you gave only suitable advice. the other new rule is it discloses more of the fees that the advisor gets. sometimes you as an investor bringing your money and you pay some fees to the advisor. sometimes the advisor makes money. there are range of different options. they will get a commission.
they have to disclose how much they will get. that's fair. people should make money for work. if somebody sells a far -- fund are they steering me towards the plan that gives me advice or the highest commission. that's with the new rule is trying to get at. it will be for the rest interest of the participant. ultimately, that's the goal to reduce the costs. the individual has more money that will be available to them in the future for retirement. those who are giving
financial advice may not be 'bestg in the clients interest. this is the fiduciary standard you were explaining. how much transparency is there currently? aboutch do people know the system under which people giving them advice can make money? rules andre are some regulations in terms of what firms have to disclose. you can look at the fees. it's not all fees that are disclose. ,he most important part of fees you have to remember that fees especiallyportant, if you have a reasonably large account balance. sound like may not that much over 30 years, you are robbing yourself of tens of
thousand dollars. reducing your fees is very important. generally, there are two problems with the fees. the first is they are not all disclosed. you can see the administrative investment fees. expense ratio. what you often don't know is the third-party commission. else payingsomebody ? are you paying indirectly for interactions between the advisor who is selling you another investment product? that's what the new rule tries to get at. is many of the rules and fees are disclosed, but they are hidden on page 12 of a prospectus. the rule does not say how you
have to disclose it, it says you can't hide them. that is an important point. the white house estimates that it can save investors $17 billion each year. that's about 1% of the annual returns of investors in their retirement savings. i want to bring in our callers as well. you can start dialing in. if you're under 40 there is a number. caller: thank you very much and good morning. what i would like to say is this.
if you study statistics carefully, you can go back to about 1950 forward. patriotismrporate and there is financial patriotism. my wife worked at gm. the 401(k) was designed to supplement it. asyou study your history, the corporations and the ports realized how this was working, they transitioned over this. now the burden is on the worker as opposed to the corporation. you willudy history find that during the reagan administration, the loopholes and the laws of her past allowed a lot of hostile takeovers. this has all been constructed deliberately. of responsibility corporations and people working for companies should go back to the way it was. this is not healthy.
people don't understand the stuff like corporations did. they protected themselves and consequently we were protected. i'm 68. i get on social security and i get a pension. i quit work and 58 because i wanted to enjoy my life. stressed up to be to 70 years old. a lot of people have a nest egg. that's another con. people should not have to work until they are almost dead before they can enjoy some of life. this is from the national institute on retirement security. million to not own assets in a retirement account. they showed the breakdown by age group. 45 and 54, 10.5
million do not have any assets in a retirement account. that's the largest number of any age group. how prepared are we? are not particularly well-prepared, and the situation is getting worse. the basic data point i would pull out is about 52% of working aged households can expect to make cuts in their standard of living when they retire. we have had a growing crisis. the other part is the crisis is much worse for communities of women than it is for their counterparts. the problem is we have lived through a period of rising
economic insecurity. wages have become less stable. wage growth has beenmake cuts if living when they weak. the housing market has become unstable. all of these things together basically would have said, from a policy perspective, getting people to save more for retirement, people need to make is secure.st egg especially those with more volatility in the labor market. in the policy issue, we have risks, more people more risks onsive growing their own. we did not offer people the right protections. we can talk about what those
mean. host: let's get another caller, jason from california. you are calling in on the under 40 line. have you started planning for retirement? caller: yes, i have. i find it a little bit difficult. as an accounting student, i have been taught that one has to assess the securities markets very carefully, and research securities. it is his sleep -- hideously difficult to get the data, and especially difficult for those savvy. not financially even with roles -- rules, it
will be difficult for anyone to choose securities carefully, much less with brokers were incentivize and are to push bad securities. host: that is jason from los angeles, california. for investors who don't think their age and are -- agents are acting in their agents are acting in the best interest, what is the recourse? guest: let me start by answering jason. jose can answer the other questions at the same time. most people have other jobs, they are not financial experts,
that is important. the question is what happens if your advisor does not follow the you, and does not give advice that is the best interest of you. the recourse primarily is through the court system. a class-action suit is the primary way of going after it fighters who don't have the best interest of the clients. that as of total fees irm financial service f earns, you can do just that from the annual statement. host: the rules of conflict of interest in the white house have kind of official, years in the making. here's a statement about regulations.
host: we're talking again with christian weller author of, "retirement on the rocks." is this an area that the government should be regulating? guest: absolutely. retirement,s to there are two things here. the first is the government already subsidizes all these investments through the tax code. the government has a big stake at making this work. they are subsidizing this. want people to do this. they want to make sure the money is there for retirement. they don't give tax breaks so can makencial firms
money. they do it so people can save for retirement. this is incredibly complex. you have to rely on some employees are financial service firms to make this work. because of the complexity, there is an unlevel playing field between the people who have the knowledge and the individual in the government. and that -- in that case, the government should step into level the playing field. the fees should be very clear. you should know how much it costs to investor money, and who the advisor is working for. they are working for the investor, but also for themselves, they want to make money. , with theirbe known commission is. i know, they give me advice, but
they also have their own interests at heart. steve.ur next caller is how do you feel that retirement? are you prepared? caller: no, not even close. with the decline in wages for the vast majority of people -- .nd talking real wages mr. weller is a trained economist, so he should know what i'm talking about. with the decline in real wages, my ability to save money is virtually impossible. and want to ask a couple of questions. you are where the a money supply you are aware that debt.ney supply is with the entire money supply being debt, you add into that
safe law markets. the only way that person can save money is is you consume less than you produce. inis impossible for everyone the economy to save money because it is impossible for everyone to consume less than you produce. for every person that consumes less, someone else has to do the exact opposite. the only way they can do that is debt.urring if you look at the global economy, you have a vast majority of people in debt, and they have to be. when you compound that with an unconstitutional monetary system based on debt, it is mathematically impossible for the vast majority of people to
have savings. could you comment? i don't want to go too much into monetary theory, but the point is well taken that rising income inequality and stagnant wages make it harder for people to say. it does not make it impossible. when we look at what kind of help people get to save, most of go to high income .arners very little goes to low income earners. if we redesign it, we can have better tax credits go to low income earners.
you put in $.50, and the government gives you one .ollars, in tur i don't want to say that changing policy can solve all of the problems. inequality.ddress economyhave a growing with rising wages, with rising incomes, with rising savings, and continue to grow. new jersey is up next. what is your comment or question. caller: am i on? host: you are on the air. started a roth ira back in 1990.
basically, i was with one over to and i switched one through my wife's company. , know that her regular 401(k) or whatever it is, i guess they watch out for the best interest , it is set upring for the conservative, and goes up the line. one 56 now, and it won't not quite conservative. , i said, let me gamble a little more. they are telling me i should go work conservative, as i get older. i'm watching the stock market bounce up and down.
it seems like the ira and the less withs more or what the general stock get is doing. to change? guest: the short answer is i cannot give that advice on the air. i also cannot give that advice in person. on how tonvest money structure my investments, not only for the rest of my working life, but also as they move into retirement, how do i then stretch the money i have saved over my career into retirement income? what kind of insurance product should i buy? how does it fit together with my house? join you be want to sell my house and move to a smaller one or larger one?
all complexities the people face as they get older. they do need a partner. there is important role for financial advisors to say, you have a house, retirement savings, and as you older, how do these things fit together. the important part is most of us are not financial advisors. most of us are not financial experts. we do need a financial advisor to help us, and guide us to make the right decision. the partner i work with, yes, they should make money as they mee me advice, as they lend expertise, but want to make sure the advisor is in the best interest of me. as you said, i want to be less conservative, more conservative, i'm willinge risks
to take, i want to be in your my kids come i don't want to be near my kids -- you have goals, and you can specify them. the financial advisor say, this is how much money i will and as i keep you the advice. i think that is reasonable. when the plumber comes to repair your toilet, i know much that will cost me, and i should know how much it will cost me to make a long-term plan for financial advice. host: you argue in your book that people are not prepared for retirement, and that is dangerous, as they get into older age, especially with onslaught of baby boomers retiring. policy fixr top to put people back on the road for retirement? guest: that is the gist of my .ook, there is no silver bullet
we can fix little things here and there. the fiduciary role that just came out from the department of labor is one example of a small step in the right direction. we need many of these small steps. we need to update social security, raise the bottom of social security. we need to make it easier for people to save outside of the employer relationship. sometimes through nonprofits, churches could step into the space. there are different ways. we need better disclosure forisks involved in saving retirement. code.d to change the tax we can reform the tax code, and give the biggest incentives to lower income people. we can simplify the savings rule . right now there are 12 different savings plans. we could streamline that.
i would argue for one saving plan. there are many things. we can to the fight, update social security, have more risk protections, and create more options outside of the employer world for people to save. each one of these steps will help to address the retirement crisis. there is no magic silver bullet to fix the problem overnight, but every step counts. the fiduciary rule is one step in the right direction an example of what we can do relatively easily, even though it took five years to get there. host: do you envision ever returning to a pension system in this country, or is the era of defined benefits basically over for american workers? guest: i think what everyone is looking for is generally something called a hybrid system
. benefit system works well in some instances, particularly well when there is a number of employers coming together, and the pension plan is a separate company. it happens in the public sector for state and local governments. work well is often defined pension plans attached to one employer. the employer is an airline, or car manufacturer. that is what they want to do. they want to make cars, fireplace, they don't want to manage multimillion dollar plans. that is where the problem comes in. the other part is we know there are problems with defined contribution plans. that in thelexity more than help people. is there a way to between them? can we establish new entities
at a low cost,ns low risk. one example is multiple employer plans. the idea is the financial service firm can bring together a number of small employers. this is a new rule, regulation that everyone supports, both republicans and democrats. a low risk, low cost plan. that is a hybrid model. it brings together money. you can layer on options that look like a pension, but are not really a pension. you can do that in a cost-efficient way. that is generally, when you ask people, where they want to go. you take the best from benefits world, low cost, low fees, the
risk, and bring in some choices, and take away responsibilities of the employer. i think that tends to be -- there are different ways, that is just one example that is currently in the books. allhybridization works around the world. host: let's hear from more callers. covington, georgia. you are calling on the line for those reaching retirement. what is your situation? and 67 myself. to be honest, i'm from the world where the 401(k)s were put in place by the witnesses. moving forward, with the younger people, and what we have point on in the job market today, with some people working with agencies, some businesses going out of his, if the government plan like the a
way social security works, with the government in control of it. you give incentive to any company that would take money from this person, it would go into a 401(k) pot, and you would get a statement like you would on social security, showing what you're running record is, and in addition, since we are starting this out fresh, i think that 2%-3% could be devoted towards coming off the top, letting the , it will come off downop towards paying national debt. this is to get america on a more secure foundation. i think this would work. i think people believe in social security. then, you would not get into -- you know, you have so many
different companies. the company that makes you feel fill out this application will get an incentive from the government to allow them to do this. you are paying down the national debt. long-term, a lot of younger people can feel more positive about themselves because it doesn't matter if they have 10 different types of jobs, they will have this running record. host: let's get in another caller. then, we will hear from our guest. next, larry from minnesota. i'm concerned about the latest thing going on in wall street, where they are short selling stocks to the point they are robbing the life savings of people from across the country. basically, we should either outlaw shortselling, where everyone out there should take the retirement funds, put them in government bond funds, where they cannot be short sold.
you can get 1%, maybe 2% on that money. if you have a 401(k) that matches at six or more, you will be able to hold on, and turn it into seven or eight. that, youare not -- will not get in the market right now. going intoat they're the market place after they savingsthe stock, your will pay back their so-called stock loans. host: christian weller, your thoughts. guest: i think the two questions are nicely dovetailing on each other. the first is should we have socialng outside of security that is to some degree mandatory. we are actually going in that direction.
it is not a federal initiative. it is largely state. there are about 28 states looking to establish private options for workers. illinois and california are looking at those options. airport,up the first and part of the paycheck automatically goes into an irony employee, have designated. the california model is little different. every employer has to get the employees to contribute, and enroll them in the state-sponsored program. you then invest in something low cost, low risk, low fees.
you always say no. -- you could always say no. that seems to be the model that people are looking at, and the government is encouraging that through new regulations that would make it easier for the state to do it for the private sector worker. i think there is a general groundswell for doing something in terms of savings for people who don't have savings through the state who can negotiate employeesls for the that individuals can. the question is, how should we invest the money? the economy and individuals have different appetites for risks, and the economy has different needs. someone to invest in the stock market, someone to invest in government bonds. in all of these things, we should give people some choice. the problem is when we give them
2000 investment choices, it does not lead to good outcomes. if we give them five choices, they can handle that. all of the investment option should be on the table. we know from the thrift savings plan for federal government employee work is that it works well when you give people five investment options. from over stivers, and people can mix and match. that works for the economy, for the individual, and we know that is the standard model around the world. host: next is mike from california. you are calling on the 61 and older line, do you feel like you are prepared for retirement? caller: i have already retired, i'm collecting social security. ryan wanted to privatize social security, and give a percentage to wall street. we all know what happened after
that. wall street went belly up. thousands of americans lost tons of money. wall street walked away. we built -- the health amount -- bailed them out. , could this beme good or bad for america? i don't feel like getting screwed over twice. the idea of social security privatization, which was championed by george w. bush use005, the idea was to ine money that people pay individual towns, and some people manage that money. the more we knew about the plan, it got more and more confiscated. it basically left people with very few choices, but exposed
them to a lot of us. privatization of social security is unpopular. there is no politician, in my .ind, who is pushing that even paul ryan has backed off social security card efficient. the idea now is to leave social security alone, strengthen it update it. at the other end, do something better outside of social security. make it easier for people to save, and protect those savings through lower fees. .hat is the fiduciary role also, make it easier for people to understand the risk, for the commit proper choices that online better with their own preferences. if i don't want to invest in
something risky, i should know that i'm not investing in something risky. if i want to, i should know what the options are, and what the risks are. there is room for disclosure, ideafor your fees, but the to get more people to save through something like state-sponsored retirement plans, redefining of the tax code, and make sure that people get to keep all of their money, most of their money for themselves. host: amassed caller is christina from maine, calling on the 61 and older line. go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: thank you and thank you for taking my call. i guess i had a comment and question. my first comment is unfortunately, when financial companies talk about what management, they are talking
about maintaining their own wealth. my situation, unfortunate, when i retired early because of illness, i was encouraged by my financial planner to roll over my pension into a variable annuity with hidden fees. it's a months going through the contract action find all the hidden fees. is there any retroactive for was the person has in this kind of situation? host: your final thoughts? isst: i'm not sure if it retroactive. i think it grandfathers old contracts. the example is exactly why the old rule is nothin necessary. it is meant to disclose fees