father and his family and the whole history of our family, an immigrant family that had a classic immigrant experience in many ways and i learned a lot about my own family. if you could commission somebody to write your family history i'm sure you would do it. you would want to write it yourself but i have to say this one minute of listening to my father's voice speaking reading or speaking extemporaneously is worth the thousand pages of biography because the fact is and this is where i have to admit i really value and miss my father very much. there was nobody like him. i have known a lot of smart people. i work with brilliant people all the time. i have never known anyone who could hold a candle to my old man and i miss him and hearing his voice brought him back to life in a way that really moved me very deeply. and you can ride all the books

and read all the books that you want about this guy but you can never really bring him to life in the way i'm talking about. to have known him as they did to have been close to him to have learned from him to have been formed to have my mind and sensibility and even my patterns of speech formed by him is a great gift that i value as they get older i value it more and more. >> host: we have been talking with adam balogh editorial director roadside books which is a division of harpercollins -- harpercollins. thank you for being on booktv. >> guest: thanks for having me. it's been a pleasure as always.

the persistent deficits and debt

of the federal government driven to a large extent by the promises of entitlement programs such as social security and medicare have prompted longtime head of the national bureau of economic research to observe that fiscal deficits impose a burden on future generations borrowing only postpones the time when taxes will have to be paid. even more pointedly, former u.s. comptroller general david walker has spoken of the problem of generational theft. present consumption, even indulgence that robs the young of opportunity. in their important new book, "disinherited" roth the manhattan institute's diana furchtgott-roth and jared meyer elaborate powerfully on this theme. we should not be surprised by persistently high levels of unemployment among the young nor

by their delays in establishing themselves as independent adults adults. the young today face an array of obstacles that we are creators for not just spending on long-established entitlement programs but workforce regulations, licensing requirements, wage and hour laws and a new expanded health care entitlements that specifically increases the cost. so it is that so many young adults are as paul ryan observed in the last presidential campaign back living in their childhood bedrooms. as taxpayers we have to be concerned about the situation. as parents we can't help but be concerned about the situation. both jared and diana are multigenerational -- are here to discuss the findings and arguments of "disinherited."

diana furchtgott-roth will speak first followed by jared meyer. diane is the former chief economist of the u.s. department of labor and served as chief of staff to the consul of economic advisers for president george h.w. bush. she's a senior fellow at the manhattan institute and drax institutes washington-based economics 21 project. she is the author of five previous books including the most recent one ready living to disaster. jared meyer is a fellow of institute a graduate of st. johns university right here in new york where he received a bachelor's degree in science, in finance. to discuss the new book "disinherited" please welcome diana furchtgott-roth and then jared meyer. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen thank you so much for coming to hear us today. there's so much going on in new york. you could have been going to the theater, you could have been going to dinner but instead you are here to hear us and we are very great owl. we wrote "disinherited" because it seems as though our governments policies are systematically biased against young people and in favor of old people in just a broad variety of ways. and there has been a lot of discussion about how the young are going to have to pay off the national debt of $18 trillion. not so much discussion about the state debt which is -- but very little discussion about the disadvantages we give to young people ahead of that time before the time they are going to be in the workforce and paying off those debts. but government policy in the field of education and then to

when they get into the workforce and then children are asked when young people have higher health care premiums so that middle-aged and older people can have lower health care needs. we find the young are doing so well. the unemployment rate of 20 to 24-year-olds is about twice the amount of 25 and over and workforce partition pace and -- participation rates have declined. when it comes to education, we find that old the teachers are given favor over younger teachers. new york city has unqualified teachers who are being paid rather than teach students rather than being fired. it's practically impossible to fire an unqualified teacher these days and even though it's

impossible to fire these unqualified teachers they stay on and children in elementary through secondary school have a worse education. economic studies have shown that if you replace a teacher in the bottom 5% was just an average teacher the lifetime earnings of that class goes up by $250,000 so there's a lot we have to gain by letting children have the best future that they have. then, when it comes to college, 17% of students have some college debt and the average debt is $27,000, so that's a lot of debt and it didn't used to be like that. 10 years ago, 20 years ago. basically if the federal government is subsidizing more and more college loans taking over the student loan business

colleges are raising their tuition to match this and this is just a lose lose situation for young people. plus high school guidance counselors and to guide everybody into four-year college even though some of them graduate with degrees that make it very difficult for them to find jobs so they are stuck with a debt and no job and some of them don't even graduate at all so they are stuck with debt without a college education. when it comes to actually entering into the workforce we find a number of policies that we have are biased against younger people. let's start with teens. it's really difficult to get a job when the minimum wage is $15 an hour. seattle raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour. today we have just heard los angeles is following. this means is practically impossible to get one of those summer jobs that was so common when i was growing up.

it also means that kids don't do that well in school cannot start at the bottom and then work up. that's one reason the teen unemployment rate is close to 20%. but they high minimum wage isn't the only barrier to young people going into the workforce. they used to be that it was possible to get an unpaid internship at "the new yorker"." after a couple of interns sued for exploitation, one by the way who had been their second summer in a row the labor department decided no more unpaid internships and for-profit companies. imagine you could get an unpaid internship at the white house. you can get one in congress. you can get one at new york communities for changer and a community activist group that but you can't get one in your local shop.

you can get one and a recording studio. we told the story in our book and we have many stories in our book of young people who have been disadvantaged by the system but one of the most poignant stories in our book is a boy called sammy. he was 20 years old last summer and he was offered an internship at a recording studio here in new york. he is a philosophy major and has his own band that wants to be a musician but a condition of this internship was that he had to get college credit because if you don't get college credit you can't have the internship. that is the law not like working in congress are at the white house. he happens to go to an ivy league school and they just don't get give credit for any kind of summer internships so he spent his summer on the street playing his guitar and his violin and working on recording on his own on the computer.

there are many many stories like that. there is no reason that for-profit company shouldn't be able to give young people the advantage of unpaid internships. then we go on to occupational licensing. we have many stories in her book about people such as melanie armstrong had to get a certificate with six years of experience in order to do african hair braiding. she wanted to open her own salon and hair braiding doesn't involve any chemicals and it doesn't involve any dyes and even if it had so what? you can get plenty of chemicals and dyes at the drugstore and just apply them yourself. while the wall -- the washington mississippi and she was finally able to do that unqualified but there isn't any reason you shouldn't be able to start your own interior design business or your own tree trimming business or your computer technology business. all of those are forbidden in some states.

after the kids have gone through school and gotten college debts and can't get into the workforce we expect them to pay high insurance premiums. the affordable care at ruled that the only -- between premiums was 3-1 so you can't charge elderly people more than three times the premium. it used to be 5-1. retell the story in her book of tommy groves who had to go on the d.c. health care exchange and tommy's premiums just about doubled and he spent months trying to get enrolled. it's just not fair to these young people that they should pay howard -- higher health care premiums of people like me can pay lower fees because their assets are much lower. the difference between the wealth of a young person in an older person is now about 51

because thanks to our federal reserve zero interest-rate policy people with pensions have seen the value of pensions increase. older people have often houses, assets built up often through inflationary times. those houses so does make any sense at all. what we are calling for is a not going to say it because i'm going to turn it over to jared who is a real millennial and who knows what the solution is. [applause] >> so there's a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle talking about how young people in america need some sort of change. things are working out for them. diana gabby numbers. clearly something is going wrong. well about a year and a half ago in a "rolling stone" article called five ways to help millennials jesse laid out his

vision which is embraced by some people on the left if you look at bernie sanders with his push for entirely free college but here's what he wanted to do. effectively wanted to make everything free, make everything publicly owned, have a guaranteed guaranteed job if you want one if you don't want a job you would be guaranteed work. he said that's the way to help millennials. diana and i wanted to write the book to show that the reason people have been mistreated and inherited really but they have right now is because of government policy. there are a lot of well-intentioned policies that the general theme of protecting older interests in keeping young people out. we all know young people don't vote and you hear that they don't care about politics but even if young people ignore the political process politicians don't ignore them and they constantly passed new bills, do things like increased pensions for government workers, spend more money on social security and medicare and push other

regulations that put benefits him politically powerful interest and then say we are just going to bring the cost down for people who can't vote yet are politically engaged or aren't even born. these are major changes for millennials once they come of age when they start paying taxes. if we wanted to write the federal deficit right now and i'm talking about the 18 trillion on the books that we would need to increase all federal taxes by 57% were cut all government services by 37% excluding the interest payment on our debt. that means young people are either going to be getting less services for the same price or they will be paying a lot more to bring these unfunded promises themselves. one thing we do see that's positive in this though is young people's attitudes are changing. the last six years left a bitter taste in some people's mouth. we all know they went

enthusiastically for the hope and change promise by president obama but now two-thirds of millennials c. government as inefficient and wasteful. that's up from four to 10 from when president obama took office. only 16% think regulations benefit the public. what i see as they see things like air bnb and they see regulations are protecting the established businesses and they see no reason why if they want start renting out their apartment to make money on the weekends why they shouldn't be allowed to do that when they are not hurting anyone else. that is why we have a specific chapter about occupational licensing because this isn't just taxi drivers. all across the economy we are seeing concentrated interests getting together and keeping out new competition. back in the 1950s only one in 20 american workers needed to get a government permission lip

to start working and keep in mind you have to do a lot of government training and pay fees to do this. now that's one in three so this has expanded drastically. people talk about unions are minimum wage for these other market regulations. nothing has exploded as much as occupational licensing. now moving on to the way to get out of this problem. it's not going to be through doing more government programs but rather we need to pare about about -- pare back the regulatory standards. the numbers are daunting and what we need to do to write the federal budget if we take into account social security and medicare. all the unfunded promises we have made means that america is $200 trillion in debt. that's unfathomable. i can't picture what it would look like. make that's why one millennial we talked to told us my generation is grown up with full acceptance of the national debt. we have never known anything else so to get out of this we

need to grow the economy and right now the current federal right nation is 175,000 pages long. this isn't just pages and pages of people writing. instead there were 1 million terms like must or cannot or shall that put real burdens on businesses. i don't know the hard time remember my phone keys and wallet when i leave the house. how will i be able to read a million regulations much less remember all of them. when we look at things like pension debt which diana touched on which is now 5 trillion for states what we need to do is take away the government's ability or put pressure on them so they think twice about promising increased benefits for people who are going to have to pay for them. of course everyone wants to get a higher turnout of pensions and politicians are glad to hand out more goodies but eventually the bill is going to come due and it's going to come due for

people who never wanted these programs and never voted for them and also aren't going to get the same return back. so we are a little bit positive because we have seen a lot of pushback against the affordable care act. the idea of extending insurance to a lot of americans is something we all want to do. we want to make sure people have access to quality health care and they can afford it but why did they set up the law in such a way that it makes no one pay for. we look at the advertising they had to do to sell the lie was almost embarrassing how much they were trying to appeal to millennials talking about group insurance to sign up for health.gov. it was really such a good idea why did you have to push this on young people so much? as we have seen a lot of young people aren't signing up to for the law and they realized it's been placed on themselves which people under 30 only spend $600 in year on health care yet the

average premium is pushing $3000 now and a 90% increase for 27-year-old males. that's the highest among any group so we could see some reforms in the health care side. we have talked about the need to grow our way out of the current budget situation but what can we do about education? that's one of the keys to success so when we look at primary education this is where i'm the most hopeful. we have seen so many promising developments everything from charter schools to vouchers to personalize learning and we realize that not every american student is the same and needs the exact same things for them their teachers that we move intended to go watch -- individualized system. it was that america up for success in the future but they college have gotten a lot of attention. hillary clinton one of her staffers talked about making

college free and bernie sanders talks about making college completely free so how can we respond to this? the way i see it is they are putting a band-aid on the problem. the real issue is that college tuition has been increasing drastically over 1000% since the late 1970s and this is actually being driven by the governments current loan program. the best way to understand this but government can write blank checks to colleges. get all the rock climbing walls and whirlpools that you want and we will increase the turnout on art and incoming -- have more money coming to you. we need to look at away were the same loan doesn't apply to everyone. isn't college the best decision for me? as diana pointed out high school guidance counselors think is the right decision for everybody but when you're coming out of this debt it's not going to better education. this is something we need to think long and hard about how we create a system that leads to

investment in education. people talk about if we send everyone to college would be great and we would have a huge investment and i would pay for itself. that would be one thing if overture but it's not rated we have over 80% of college graduates right now that are unemployed, young college graduates and that's double the rate since the clinton administration. staggering 44% of college graduates are unemployed. this isn't captured in the unemployment statistics for what it means is they're working in jobs where they didn't need to go to school and become $27 -- the $7000 in debt in order to get. we have ideas on how we can move forward but i think the main thing we need to do is evaluating everything through the prism of how it affects the youngest americans. how does this regulation affect new entrants to the work horse? how does making this promise without paying for it put a

burden on future generations? these are the questions we need to be asking me help by writing the book we can bring this into the debate. young people are extremely energetic. people say they are apathetic but look at their current push for fossil fuel to investment colleges. if we could get young people to have the same passion they have for fossil fuel -- meant for washington we would see real change. thank you. [applause] thank you diana and jared. those who take a more activist republican view like to talk about programs as investments. how are their investments that government could and would help

them? >> you have to look at the role of government vis-à-vis the private sector and there are very few investments the government can make that the private sector could not do better. the government should be responsible for keeping a sound currency. the national defense so nash and and -- so young people perhaps in basic scientific research because individual companies don't have the resources or the incentives to do that basic research because it gets used by other companies. so i would say that's the role of the government in terms of investment. and underinvestment government could make is rolling back some of its regulations. politicians could make an investment in reforming social security by regelin raising the retirement age and changing the indexing from wage indexing for social security benefits rising with wages in the economy to

price indexing for social security benefits rise with prices in the economy so young people pay for programs that they won't even they retire. but we need is an american association of young persons to balance out the american association of retirement. [applause] >> let me follow up with you jared. how do you process a program as a younger person like social security? again activists, government types of you will say you are relieved of the burden of caring for elderly parents. you won't have to worry about their hospitalization or medicare or social security. >> i would say one thing i would not be relieved of his paying higher taxes to fund these programs. if we look at current trends if they continue in 2050 young people are going to be paying a

combined 30% of their paychecks just to fund social security and medicare. that is over double double what it is today and you might think that's not possible. there's no way government could take 30% just for entitlements ignoring other taxes. that's the level we have seen a lot of european economies and it's not working out well for them. he thought an ordinance pushing 50% in places like spain where we see high youth unemployment in portugal and italy, is that where we want to be where we are taking a third up in people's hard-earned money to support assistance that they will probably never get a sense of. >> the young woman in a purple bear. i'm encouraging young people. >> thank you. thank you for your talk. especially the higher education.

along those lines i wondered specifically about so the balance between having a lower minimum wage and also this notion about going to college because first i wonder when you talk about the minimum wage to what extent do you address a lot of the literature that argues that raising the minimum wage doesn't happen effect on unemployment? the literature is significant in that direction and i wonder if you would address it correct -- directly and talk about flaws in the methods. and then also briefly, also the argument about minimum wage and the direction. theory assumes we are talking about competitive markets but most of our labor markets there

is an imbalance and firms tend to have more market power so i guess i just wonder if not a minimum wage and we are talking about everyone not going to college how do we ensure that even when those young people grow to be middle-aged that we are able to the markets to provide leverage? >> 97% of working americans at above minimum wage not because of the kindness of their employers but because that's what their employers have to pay them in order to retain them. if you are offered a minimum wage job he would say thanks but no thanks and you would find a different job and that's why the minimum wage, that's why a lot of studies on the effects of minimum wage have found that it's not that significant because it doesn't apply to that many people. another reason some of the studies are flawed and i've written about that and i would

like to share that with you afterwards but the important thing is if you suggest for example raising the minimum wage to the average wage in economy which right now is $25 an hour people would say that's ridiculous, some people won't have jobs that there are some people who also don't have jobs because of $7.25. there are some people who won't have a job when it's $10.10 and some people won't have jobs in los angeles when it's $15 an hour. it's really un-american to say if you have skills under $15 an hour or under $10 now we are not going to allow you to work in the united states. as the minimum wage goes up employers have to pay more. they will hire a different type of person. they will hire a 15-dollar an hour type person and the $7.2025 hour person isn't going to be old to get his first job and move up the career ladder. >> i would add to that when we

are looking at the federal minimum wage in particular i don't see how it makes sense to apply a one-size-fits-all rate to the entire united states. maybe wealthy suburbs and seattle can handle a 15-dollar minimum wage without young people losing their jobs or if you bring us to rural all of them are somewhere in oklahoma and look at the bureau of labor statistics they look at each metropolitan area and calculate the average earnings. you can see in a lot of states over 10 or 20% of people are in their proposed $10.10 minimum wage so the one-size-fits-all admiral does not make sense in our people across-the-board but especially in low-wage low cost of living areas. >> jared has an article coming out tomorrow were a look at the los angeles minimum wage and lives of occupations in los angeles that are paid under $15 an hour. i believe he named janitors and

bartenders and a few other occupations and people who had their jobs when the minimum wage rises to 15. that is the problem. if you have that initial job you would rise up into a living wage job but if you don't that's a problem. also the average income according to the census of family with a minimum-wage worker is $52,000 a year so many of these incomes are supplemental. >> i really appreciate the question. >> when you go to these different policies someone argued from the other side of the gating against amfar mental mental -- counting towards young people and environment in which

they wouldn't be able to succeed because their environment wouldn't be conducive to having success in agriculture and energy and what have you. how would you respond to concerns like that where they say the government needs to increase programs like environmental if your policy were to take that? >> environmental conservation you mean more regulations to reduce the environmental effect? we were originally going to include a chapter on that in the book about how these are grams per young people drives away jobs and drives away manufacturing and energy intensive companies. our agent carl mann said this

topic alienated young people and it was difficult to explain certain things that are reportedly being done for the environment actually hurt young people and so that chapter was omitted. i've also written another entire book on the subject called regulating to disaster about how energy policies adversely affect the united states. i think young people are hurt by these policies and i'm not sure it's helping global warming. if we are driving offshore energy intensive manufacturing then it goes to some place like china india or vietnam where their regulations are not nearly as stringent as ours there will be more emissions and more pollution so i don't think it really helps the globe. doesn't help the united states economy and most certainly doesn't help globally. >> i should just add if a company is poisoning rivers are poisoning the air we have regulations to take care of that and that's something if they were destroying the planet that

would be one question but the department of energy and the epa, they are the perfect example to get into talks about regulatory reform. if we look at some things proposed in congress right now it would make it so that congress and there's a large bill over a certain cost congress would have to approve it rather than use regulatory agencies functioning as their own branch of government even though they are not elected. this is something we could do to rein in the executive branch rather than pushing regulations over and over and the general tendency of agencies is to overstate the benefits of what they are doing an understate the costs because they want to keep adding to what they have done. we need something to push back on this were congress can retake its power and be more connable to the people than these executive agencies are. >> any more questions? the young woman right there way

in the back. >> i think you are far more armed with statistics than i in the subject but i have some issues with you paying a generation against each other and that is how it sounds to me. there was an example posed as younger people are suffering because they don't have added money but there's a tremendous number especially in manhattan a very wealthy young people who are being paid sums of money that i know i never got when i was that young and i have advanced degrees. i think focusing on people who are very young making no money is certainly something to be addressed but i would suggest that that's problematic. suggesting that older people of means are also problematic. to say the guidance counselors pushing everyone to be going to college is also problematic. i don't think it's the guidance

counselors that are pushing their that. coming from a myriad of peer groups so to suggest purely coming from guidance counselors is problematic. >> those are excellent questions. >> let's let her get to her question. >> i think it's problematic and some of this is to strengthen your argument that it's important we look at the range of issues prior to concluding because i think there are some major issues in terms of our policy but in order to look at it with a keen eye would need to look at it individually. >> is a challenge rather than a question but go ahead and respond. >> those are excellent comments and we emphasize in the book that we don't mean to pitch generations against each other because this is something older generations are concerned about too. grandparents are concerned with their grandparents don't have jobs. parents are concerned and their children are looking at home when they should be moving out

so this is something that others all three generations all of the generations. being economists would look at averages and there are some outliers and young people who are doing very well. there are some old people who are not doing so well but on average government policy is taking from a group that has less income and getting into a group that has more and we say that is something that should be ended. this is something older generations care about. they all want social security to put in balance of their kids aren't paying for a program that won't be there when they retire. >> i would just like to add we featured my grandfather in the book. i had a conversation with him and his like the social security conversation. i was bringing up do you feel like you have earned your social security benefits? he said yes i have worked my career and paid into the system

but what happened in the recent why we bring in washington is they sold a false bill to americans. they sold social security is a personal investment program but because of mismanagement and promises that they couldn't keep now what young people are paying and are going right to people such as my grandpa so he never intended this and i don't think the aarp as much as we -- them they are not sitting in a smoke-filled room figure out how to take it to millennials right now so these things have accumulated over time because there's a general tendency tendency of governments if they were well organized groups over the politically weak. also your point on guidance counselors is well taken. it's a cultural problem. it's not just guidance counselors. it's just something you have to do checking off the box i'm going to community college or an associates degree or entering the workforce or technical school could be better choices.

>> jared first congress does not have to reclaim its powers. some of us are very disturbed by -- [inaudible] my question is this. george shultz once said -- [inaudible] why do you have any confidence that this won't happen in the future? >> we broke 1 million restrictions now and we are getting better at measuring regulation. it used to be a shadow thing. we have the federal register but

we didn't know the real world effects about this for now we have organizations such as the institute for justice and the manhattan institute working with small distances. we are able to get the paste this and show these regulations have real world effects. they do things to americans and we are able to measure it better. we can see how many regulatory tax we can see what industry somewhat agencies are promulgated so why the amount of regulation has gone like this maybe now we have enough tools we can start pushing back against that. >> president carter did manage to deregulated airlines and get rid of one regulatory airline board. he also managed to deregulate telephones. president clinton managed to put in place welfare reform after

vetoing the bill 3 times from a republican congress. he replaced afdc with tanf which change incentives and really lowered the number of people on welfare so change in washington as difficult as possible with the right leadership as possible we are going to get a new leader in 2017. we are going to get a new leader but we might get a new leader whose interested in pushing some of these programs through. >> as an old professor i'm not sure but i'm wondering 30% rate is clearly plenty and is to get to that tax rate people don't work anyone have enough money. do you see the economy -- what you see happening? i won't be here to won't be you do see won't be here to see if the one wonders what could happen as tax rates just the real money needed to support these programs where it's going

to come from. >> it's easy to forecast the past. the future i have more trouble with. america has the ability to have the pendulum swing back getaway and if you look at canada for example which lowered its tax rates 10 years ago and now has found itself with lower deficits than we do lower unemployment and better immigration system faster gdp growth so it's possible for countries to turn around. i don't think we'll ever get to a situation of a 30% payroll tax with income taxes on top of that. people are going to vote the government out and vote in place a new group that's going to put in place a different kind of tax reform so i don't think we will ever get to that. >> jared do you support 30% payroll tax? [inaudible] >> chief executive from the

magazine is with us. >> it seems to me the biggest -- did someone else's to switch social security to a chilean like option where instead of paying your deduction to the government it goes into some preapproved account that you can actually see a crew and the workers in chile you can actually see their pension deductions growing and that was the most powerful mechanism for that country to keep it away from government hands. >> it's unfortunate that person george w. bush wanted to take 3% of people social security contribution into individual

accounts and not only that that they could pass on to their heirs. so if they died prematurely their heirs would have something from social security unlike the current system. i don't hold out much hope we would get the chilean system here but it might be possible to get a small portion of that added to an individual account. social security could be more balance by gradually raising the retirement age and changing it from wage indexing to price indexing. >> jared do you want to weigh in on social security? >> if we look at what social security, now it's paid by 58 million people and that's over 1000 times more than was being paid when the program began so people who put in place social security would not recognize it today. people are working longer and that's great that we need a

programs to adapt to this new reality and also to cost nearly 400,000 times what it did in 1937 that's ingesting for inflation -- adjusting for inflation. this was for elderly people who couldn't support themselves and didn't have savings and now it's ubiquitous 40% of federal spending so it's nothing like it what it was one when was put into place. >> needs to reform but incremental is mr. subscription. >> it would be great to have dramatic reforms that our political system doesn't allow it. so far political system has allowed us to make small changes necessary over the past 10 years. washington has been portraying america's young because it hasn't taken small steps let alone large ones. >> the gentleman on the far right in the back.

>> my question has to do with government programs in higher education. i know there are some economists take for example that say not everyone needs to go to college and some professions that require a degree. how do you guys feel about this whole idea that not everyone should go to school in a free-market system much fewer people would be going to school. if i want to get a loan from a private room and say i want to get a 100,000-dollar-degree in poetry they would tell me to get out so i mean how do you guys feel about this? i know there's a stigma about staying not everyone should go to school that is somehow anti-education or anti--- how do

you feel about that? >> exactly. that's one of the problems which i was referring to the guidance counselors. it's difficult for a guidance counselor to say you are not college material. it upsets the parents and it upsets the student that going to the community college and i've done research on this pushes you to get a occupational therapy physical therapy nursing or programmer specialties. that costs about $6000, $3000 a year so it's an inexpensive pap to a well-paying job. more people should look at doing it. >> jared do you see that among your peers at all? >> bayview college's something as i said earlier that you check off in the box but i think

employers need to shift their view. right now they are siphoning and throwing out resumes that don't have college degrees. it's a really expensive and inefficient way to figure out if someone is responsible and after looking at my piercing college they are actually responsible. there's a big shift that needs to happen in the public perception and employers view that we are not going to hire anyone you didn't go to school so this is a large issue. >> a couple more questions. this young man here. hang on for the microphone please. so far you have predominately discussed the baby boomer generation and the millennial generation. to what extent particularly in the areas of social security and health care is a small generation x.

[inaudible] >> anytime they are bringing up ideas to change social security generation x isn't going to see drastic changes as millennials are. a lot of younger people are in the same boat. it's hard to find an exact ainge where we with pick the winners versus losers. it's difficult but the people who were younger members of generation x are fitting into the problems we discussed with millennials but thankfully for them they didn't come out college and run into a recession. they weren't growing up then so they had a little bit of a better economic footing to get started. >> we don't really want smaller numbers of any generation because that lowers economic growth and one of the problems with the current economy is the rate has gone down below replacement rate.

we need to move beyond 4% rate to see the rebuilding because we need more workers supporting more people as they age. >> one last question we will defer to our elders. this young man. >> i have two questions. one is on the minimum wage. i remember when the new york times actually said they were against the minimum wage and they supported earned income credit basically said not everyone who gets the minimum wage is a needy person needing a subsidy. so if you limit and all people are working obviously and those who are not making enough in the free