captioning performed by vitac and we have been living off that capital investments we made before that ever since. that situation is changing. people need to recognize that. it was what the secretary was talking about. and it is one of the reasons we're so concerned about the possibility of sequestration. way in the back. >> secretary work said the focus of better buying power on 1.0 and 2.0 was more on acquisition reform. can you comment more on that? >> well, i generally do not use the term acquisition reform. i prefer to talk about improvement and continuous improvement. i think there is a body of thought out there that -- and

there has been historically, if we do a couple of things differently everything would be much better. i don't think that's the case. i think, first of all, this is a very complex business. i think we're actually pretty good at it. we had the best military in the world and we have had the best military in the world for quite a long time. i think we can get a lot better and we need to do a better job in a number of different fashions than what we're doing. as an industry person or as a government person, i believe that identifying specific things you can do that will actually have an impact, trying them in some case and seeing if they do and attacking on a number of fronts prioritizing those fronts and going after the things you think will have the greatest benefit is the right approach. we have learned from our own experience here. and i think we're actually making quite a bit of progress. if you look at the data i think you may be starting to see some changes in terms of results. if you look at degrees of overruns and schedule slipz,

program cancellations and so on i think we're making progress. it is a long lead time between any changes we make and those results being visible. it is also incredibly noisy data. so that's why we're trying to learn, correct data and do correlations. but it is a -- it is not an easy task to improve defense acquisition. it is a long-term fight to do that on a lot of fronts. that's what better buying power has been all about. since 1.0 and 2.0 and 3.0, we'll continue that. it is not really to a great degree about laws and regulations. it is about our practices our capability, how we incentivize industry. we have the tools we need in general to improve. i think we can tweak things around the margins. i think we can remove some of the bureaucratic burdens that our people are distracted by and we can do a better job on a number of fronts. but it is slow, steady growth and slow steady progress i'm after, not some kind of revolution overnight. that's what we're about. and i do think -- this may be

wishful thinking, but i do think we're starting to see the turning a bit and we're starting to see better results. >> survey from federal news radio. on your bullet on the chain of command, another point you have in common with mr. thornberry you talk about the callout to the pms for their unvarnished opinions for the status on their programs. i know you're not going to tell us exactly what they said. but was there a common theme or takeaways for you that lead you to -- >> if there was one, it was to reinforce what i said in answer to the previous question. i'm getting assessment from pms doing programs and sustainment, who are programs in early production programs in development, and i'm seeing a wide variety of problems that they're dealing with. and they're in the details. they're not problems that are big policy changes they're going to fix. they're problems that maybe by a small change to a regulation we

a small change to physical law and how it covers the money we're allowed to spend, by a better job of getting competition into the original design. i'm learning enormous amounts from them. and one of the things i'm learning from them is how impressive our program measures are. i'm seeing terrific assessments come in that really show that our people have their hands on their programs they understand them, they know what needs to be done. they're trying very hard to do it. that's very encouraging. i think it was a movie done with asking for that was done -- people who argued against it. i think it was exactly the right thing to do and it has been very beneficial. as i read through them, i think to myself i would like to publish this. i'm thinking about doing that, i'm thinking about asking a number of them if i can do that and put a bunch of them out. i think if you read them you start to get a much, much better sense of the real life problems all these people are facing and how tough their lives are and how difficult their jobs are and

what a great job they're doing. >> cybersecurity given the emphasis in 3.0, when will cybersecurity become a source selection criteria along with cost schedule forum ans? >> i hadn't thought about it in those perm sterms, but it should be a requirement period on our program. i can see it being inculcated into risk assessments and so on. and compliance with basic security requirements already is a requirement. it is a contractual requirement. the reason we made the change last year was to put a contractual requirement on all of our contracts that people had to protect data to a certain standard. that's an enforceable requirement. so -- through review about the government, the same way dcmo would enforce any other contract requirement. dcma, excuse me. >> you're not mulling a criteria

in source selection to -- >> it is more of a pass/fail tony. you got to be good enough on cybersecurity to get to do the job is really what we're after. last one? one more. >> south korean newspaper. it is not directly related to -- you're in charge of the acquisition. recently because of the controversy over that system more koreans came -- became aware that that system is more effective than the other missile defense system. but even though korean government and -- or usfk commandant wants it deployed in

korean peninsulaeó there is no -- available at the moment. when will be the oldest time that you have in mind to be ready for deployment in korea? >> not going to be able to answer that. i'm not aware of any discussions about that in korea. i know the secretary is there. but i don't believe he plans to discuss that at this time. so i'm not going to be able to answer your question. sorry. >> -- to acquire more battery -- >> i honestly don't know the availability of the batteries so -- >> -- that can change if the threat degree of north korea changes? >> that's not a question i'm able to address. it is not my position to address questions like that. i'm sorry i can't give you an answer. all right. thank you, everybody.

join us on tuesday when we'll be live with a hearing on immigration issues with the head of immigration and customs enforcement. sarah saldana. she'll testify before the house judiciary committee. you can watch that starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. also tomorrow, senate foreign relations committee chair bob corker. he would like congress to review any iranian nuclear deal and he's introduced a bill to make that a reality. working on it with fellow committee members tomorrow, live at 2:15 p.m. eastern. and more foreign policy on wednesday when the u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha power will testify on the 2016 state and foreign operations budget. that will get under way wednesday at 2:00 eastern. we'll also have that hear on c-span3.

this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with comcast to learn about the history and literary life of st. augustine, florida. >> deleon may or may not have been suching for the fountain of youth. people said he was out for additional property for the king of spain and colinization attempts and gold, which is very decidedly true. we do know that once he came ashore after searching for good harbor took on water and wood this area presents one of the few fresh water springs in the area around 30 degrees, eight minutes. and is also the location of the 1565 first settlement of st. augustine, 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded and 55 years before the pilgrims landed on plymouth rock. >> the hotel ponce de leon was

built by flagler. he's very little known outside of the state of florida but he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he essentially had been a co-founder of standard oil company, with john d. rockefeller. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise, and as it turned out, florida was it. he realized that he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and st. augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently. so clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler. he was a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary. >> watch all of our events from st. augustine saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3.

with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span, and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history book shelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series reel america, featuring are akifl government and educational films from the 1930s to the 70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite

provider. watch us in hd. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. next, a discussion about the aging u.s. society working and living longer, lacking retirement savings and the impact of people's retirement years. panelists include authors analysts professors and the chief retirement strategist at the world's biggest money manager. from the new america foundation in new york city, this event is from last december. it ran just over an hour.t >> can everyone hear me on this mike? great. this is a big topic. there's so many aspects to it, so we're in a bit of a new age here. 10,000 baby boomers reaching the age of 65 every day, i believe. and it's been called the end of retirement, a phrase that teresa has used so i'm going to ask her

to start us talking about this topic by talking about what you think about that, why is it the end of retirement? >> so in talking about retirement that's voluntary, that promises of secure income for the rest of your life, that's pretty much gone for most people. let's take off the top 10%, that's fine. they are a little bit worried about living too long, but they are okay. the real problem is the bottom 90%. there isn't a problem of long-term care insurance or of finding work if you have lost your job. liza said that a lot of people are retired earlier than they thought they would be. but you're not alone. most people who are retired say i've left work earlier than i wanted to so most of the so-called retirement is just withdrawal from the labor market with no fault of their own, with no choice either because of

health, spouse's health or because they are laid off. then they re-enter the labor market at very different jobs than they had before. so we don't -- we have an issue now where policymakers are on bipartisan policy commission for retirement security are talking about raising the retirement age. there's not an economist who doesn't think that's not a good idea for social security. however, the narrative is that people can just continue working for a year or two or more. two things wrong with that, is that many -- most people don't have the choice to just work in their career job. they do have a choice to go back to work and enter the labor market the teenagers are in retail, food service other low wage jobs if they have to re-enter the work world after the age of 65. and the other problem with that, carol, is that we are finding in our center a growing differential in mortality by

race and income level and by sex in some cases. we are finding working women, i think every working woman i talk to understands this, actually have the same amount of mortality as working men. so the idea that women live a lot longer because of genetics is probably not true. there's something about the work life that brings down the longevity, so we have seeing that if we end pensions and make people work longer, some people are going to be able to have some kind of retirement for the rest of their life, the long livers, those with wealth, and others work until they drop dead and that's what i'm concerned about. >> that is the dark side. i want to ask chip and marci, and ngina, if you want to join in, there's another side to this, too, people say boomers are a very resilient group, have changed every age, and what

you're seeing and thinking on that. >> i think that's true. i think boomers have been an exceptional generation. as somebody who has followed them throughout my life, i am hoping they solve this problem so that when my generation gets there, it will all be good. but every stage in life through which they've passed, they've completely remade the idea of what it meant to go through that life. i agree with a lot of what teresa said. i think it doesn't really just apply to people on the edge of retirement. i think it applies to millenials as well that are finding the job market more difficult than we thought it was. so i think if we look at what's happening in society now, i think there are two really important trends that are so pervasive. almost title in nature. first is a skewed demographic.

that is becoming more skewed in terms of -- we have people living longer, so we're going to have an older segment of our population. and then birth rates are falling as well. that's one trend. the other trend is the rapidly increasing ability of technology. and technology itself is competing for jobs on a more frequent basis. those two things together i think are putting incredible pressures on all our institutions, the way that we think, the way we behave as individuals, the commercial institutions that we have, i work for an asset manager, we're thinking about how can we serve our clients and this changing environment but also the institutions that we have that teresa alluded to, what should retirement look like. is it an outmoded notion and it was nice and whoever got to enjoy it was great but let's face the reality of today's situation. those are the things that i

think will be where if there's a crisis, it will be -- i hesitate to use the word crisis, i think it brings a little too much drama to it, but all of those institutions are going to need to change. coming back to the point of your question, where should we try to look for optimism, the boomers are great at remaking institutions. that's kind of what they've done historically. and so i am hopeful in pulling for them that we are playing a part in making sure we -- >> i work for encore.org, and we partnered and we are telling a new story that is also happening. i also don't deny anything that teresa portrayed, but there's another narrative going on. nicholas kristof said this best, you asked if boomers might be able to solve this.

he said boomers might have the potential to be remembered for what they did in their 60s, not just what they did in the 60s, and he was referring to a program we started called the purpose prize that gives $100,000 prizes to social innovators over the age of 60, and we are approaching the tenth year of that program. we have honored hundreds of individuals who have been using the later part of their working lives to solve big social problems. some of them, the financial kinds of problems we are talking about right here. >> do you have examples? >> i do have many examples, several from new york city since we are sitting here in new york. sometimes they're everyday people, sometimes they're people that had esteemed careers. this year we have a former tech executive, david campbell, who was motivated by the tsunami in southeast asia to go over and create a disaster relief organization that allows people

to be engaged in disaster relief as temporary transient volunteers, you put all his life experience into that project, he calls himself a member of the good for nothing club. he says we do good for nothing. last year we honored a woman from new york, barbara young, a domestic worker, immigrant in new york city who worked as a nanny and caregiver and in her encore career she became an advocate, works at domestic workers alliance, got her first paying job with benefits in her 60s and works as an advocate. that prize honors people, some with paid jobs, some as founders of organizations. there's a big spectrum of what that looks like. >> there's a push/pull between the need to work and the desire to work and i wonder ngina if you want to comment on that, what you're seeing. >> on the need to work and desire to work?

i guess so -- you ask me a question -- i want to comment -- like for me the issue is -- one of the issues is i feel like for some people they're going to be able to have this sort of option of maybe doing something meaningful that this has been started or that they've been drawn into, social entrepreneur started this organization, but i feel like there are other people for whom it is going to be hard, it would be hard to do that. maybe i'll give a personal story that may help, i feel like i am babbling. and i'm incoherent. maybe a personal story will help. i think about my mother. my mother had to take care of my grandmother, my grandmother got sick, my mother had to take care of her to the end of her life right at the time of the great depression. then when she wanted to go to work, she was in her early 60s,

nobody was hiring. she had to take early retirement, claim social security benefits early. i feel like for her, then she found meaningful activities in which she can be engaged through her church, but then the reality is so that's fine, social security is fine, as long as everything goes well. and the reality of it is when the car breaks down, then the kids have to pay. she doesn't earn enough to buy a new car, to make major repairs. any time there's something that requires a huge chunk of savings, she is not so well off. she's okay because she has kids that are employed that help her out. but i feel like it is not the picture most retireds had. she thought, when i have retirement, thinking i am on the beach, not a beach person but doing things and financially independent and not having to call us when there's an emergency. i worry about the people that are set up in that kind of space where they might have enough to get by, but don't have a good

chunk of savings where there's a crisis they can handle it on their own. those are the kind of people i worry about. >> the boomers were the first generation suddenly told midstream it is up to you to put this together. and savings rate is not that great for that group and at the same time people are living longer. perhaps some of you want to talk about that. >> chip and i probably have the numbers on hand. so i'll start. we look at what people have now at different age groups. this is my team at the news school, then project out what their income will look like. about six other groups at universities and centers do it, too, so our numbers conform with most of theirs. so when we look at what people have, people at 50 and over on average have a little over

$100,000, but there's a huge variation, and most people have nothing in their retirement accounts, an ira or 401(k). near retirees, look at what they have, and most middle class people, this is stunning, are downwardly mobile and be poor or near poor. that's about $17 per day. the only way i can get my students and journalists and myself to understand what that means. so this is the first time that a generation since social security was started, they're going to do worse than their parents and grandparents in terms of income security. at the same time, many of them, not all, that's the whole idea, but many of them live longer, 15% have a chance to make it past 90. so bad things happen when you get old. you're just at risk of bad things happening when you get old.

so we are looking at what that might mean for state and local budgets because they're the first entities online to provide food and housing. we are looking at what this might mean for aggregate demand in a community when incomes of the biggest growing group falls. so and what it might mean for quality of communities. so i am seeing that most people really do care about doing meaningful activities when they retire. all of our friends have the choice to change jobs and change activities so they can control the pace and content of their day. but either you're looking for one of the bad jobs in america, with the world's leader in the creation of jobs that pay under $20,000 per year, they're looking for that or they're looking for kinship networks to get income and welfare, and

kinship networks don't work as it turns out, low income seniors often don't have the adult children that have an extra bedroom or anything more in their savings account. so people that have children that can help them out are usually people that are better off. so we are in a crisis, chip. we don't have the social structure, we don't have long-term care insurance, we don't have caring labor intact, and people are committing to retirement who lost more money than their parents and grandparents. >> when you use the word crisis as you use it, i don't disagree. the crisis is more to institutions than the people. i do think we will see the institution will change, but let's start with an institution that's been around for about 30 years, the 401(k) plan. if you look at what really happened in the past 30 years,

1980, when they started, you had the boomers grew up in a period of time where we were slowly moving to a system where they were funding all of the risks, all of the things we are talking about are risks that present in old age around retirement issues, right, when you're not working. let's be specific. what do we mean by retirement. means you're not able to sell your human capital in the marketplace any more, that's what retirement means, either because you choose not to, because you can afford not to, or you can't. and that's what you're alluding to. and so the boomers i think, my impression of what happened was we kind of over time over the 30 years offered the 401(k) system or made changes to make the 401(k) system the third leg of the retirement. you had personal savings, social

security, and 401(k). replacing the more traditional style pensions. that caught boomers by surprise. i think a lot of them thought -- i think it was like a little nice benefit at work.) i didn't know this was going to be what i live off of in retirement. and that came too late. so talking about why you can be optimistic about institutional reform, if you are a 25-year-old entering the work force due to legislation passed in 2006, you're automatically enrolled in a 401(k) plan. you are automatically put in a e ú fund in a lot of cases, automatically put in a fund that's going to take a fair amount of investment risk when you're young, move down over time so it is more conservative when you're older. hopefully you'll earn real

money, rather than keeping up with inflation or even worse, falling behind. your employer has the option of actually increasing your contribution rate over time. my point in bringing this up is we have seen institutional reform, an important part of the marketplace. if you're a 25-year-old and in a well designed plan, not saying all of them are well designed, but if you're in a well designed plan, you have a good chance of having that leg of the stool being there when you're ready to retire. now, things we need to work on. doesn't cover people that don't have a job obviously. doesn't cover people who have part-time jobs in a lot of cases. so there's still room for more reform and improvement in the overall system, but we have seen instances where there is that institutional reform. the last thing i'll say before handing the mike back, last thing i'll say, again coming back to the point, everything

that we are talking about, we are focusing on the boomers, people in retirement. it is putting incredible stress on the entire system and millenials, too. it is across the whole demographic. if we don't think of it in that way, we are going to make mistakes in how we reform the institutions, and the biggest mistake we could make is, you know, asking the millenials to take on too much of the responsibility of what the institutional reforms, who we are asking to pay for institutional reforms.e, what we don't want to have is develop intergenerational resentment and sense of ñzf unfairness there, that will lead to bad things. it is not just a boomer problem, it is a societal problem. >> and millenials are under their own pressure with student loans, working for companies that don't offer 401(k)s or don't make enough to contribute.

>> a lot of starter jobs are filled by boomers. >> i can find one other thing i would say as we rethink the system, you suggested that we have to rethink solutions, i am worried that the defined contribution that the new system of employer provided pensions, that are defined contribution, that's not just an issue where baby boomers got caught off guard. the reason i say this, i have been doing research with a colleague at the university of michigan policy school, we have looked at defined contributions plan, how they allow people to access funds prior to retirement, how people behave. during the great recession, did people, when faced with financial pressure associated with an economic downturn did they start tapping into those monies? we see not a majority, it depends when you measure it.

get upwards of 50% tapping in in some way. so i know we have -- i feel the train left the station, but if that's what we are going to have, we have to think of helping people think about are you sure you want to tap into that during a recession, because that means it is not going to be there. it is not sort of the baby boomers were caught off guard because they didn't realize that these plans would matter, i feel like even for those of us who our employer provided plans have always been in this forum, we have things to think of too. there's temptation when there's a downturn to use those monies, immediate consumption seems more important, like not being able to pay rent or utility bills, even routine bill payments and how that's associated with drawing down on retirement savings. i think this matters more for low wage workers. >> no, it doesn't. that's what's surprising, it is middle class workers and upper middle class workers who are

tapping into 401(k) plans, with loans, withdrawals, rollovers, cash outs. the low income workers don't have anything. the 401(k) has really preyed on, going to use a word because we are in front of people, we are going to -- i want you to sharply focus on how different i am from chip, the 401(k) system is in many cases a predatory system. fees are quite high. people don't know what it is. protections of the money when it goes into ira is not protected like a fiduciary, so we are getting tax deferral money for retirement, and it is being used, not blackrock but other financial institutions, because you're still in the institutional space where you do really good things, but the 401(k) is inherently a fatal flawed design system, it is

voluntary, it is commercially run. all of the money in it has to be fully liquid, even though it is supposed to be for long term savings, but you can only match it to short term liquid accounts, and it can be withdrawn in a lump sum. we are the only country with tax deferred retirement money that we allow withdrawals before retirement. because other countries said we are giving you a tax break here, it is for retirement. you can't use it before retirement. hardships are supposed to be something that happened once in a lifetime. to people with 401(k)s, it happens every couple years. it is liquid savings and they're flawed. one of the reasons we have a retirement crisis is because the 30 year experiment with the 401(k) system failed. we need a mandatory system on top of social security, managed by good folks like at blackrock and other institutional investors. i wish all 25-year-olds were in a retirement account, but they're not. as carol said, most companies

don't have a retirement plan, and it is falling. it is over 50% and it is falling, over not just recession, since 2000. small employers, medium size employers, even some big employers for big portions of their employees are not providing any retirement plan. so stop the $140 billion incentive to try to get people in it, stop predatory fees. protect all retirement money that's in iras. that's the kind of radical reform. and expand social security, not reduce it. >> i will say there has been movement in the 401(k) system to go to index funds charter funds, that has gradually -- there is more awareness of this. >> a lot of her comments are spot on. i knew she was going there. i qualified my statements, not all of them are well designed plans.

i knew she was going there. look, the joke i typically use is you look at, you know, the affordable care act, what is 401(k) named, some section of the irs code. we never intended this to be the plan it is today. if we would have, we would have given it another name. so we tried to make it good. so my point in talking about the regulatory reforms, we made the biggest improvement we made since its inception about eight years ago, and i think those reforms have shown promise, but teresa's point, it is not a retirement plan, right? because what does a real retirement plan do. it takes away uncertainty about when you're going to die. it says i am going to get a

paycheck for life. how many people in this room know when they're going to die? nobody. none of us know. if you do know, please don't raise your hand. but nobody really knows when you're going to die. what we should do as a room, we should say let's put our money together, we are all going to pay out. we're going to average out our life expectancies. unfortunately the people that die earlier than expected are going to subsidize. that i hope for whom that happens to, that's not your last thought, right? i actually don't think it is many people's last thought, my money is going to that person. but that, you know, and people that live longer get to receive the money from people who died earlier than expected. that's the only way we've ever been able to figure out how to diversify uncertainty around how long you'll live. that makes such a difference in the efficiency of how long your money can go. so if you're going out and self

insure retirement risk, you go to a financial adviser that says if you're 65, you're expected to live to 85, average mortality. on average you're expected to live, we should prepare beyond average. this is the case where not everybody is above average. not like he would woe be gone. so you basically are saving more money and spending less money goes less further than it could be. it is how social security works, how old defined plans work, in that system your money went about a third farther. when you talk about a savings crisis, i feel bad. i know people are saying what do you want me to do, i am saving as much as i can, i can't save that much more. if we could figure out how to make that money go farther in retirement, that would be relief on the pressure of saving more. that's what those plans did.

the biggest problems with these plans, putting aside, there are some badly designed plans that have bad fees, fees are too expensive on them. and i want to be clear about that. we are big believers in transparency in fees, that you can solve this problem with index funds. but having said that, your money goes about a third further in retirement through use of that many mortality pool. it is impossible to get that in a 401(k) system. that's the thing that would go far. things like teresa has done around our bond, i hope she will describe in a minute, would be a great way to be an investment vehicle. that mortality pools could invest in rethinking that

mortality pool. today, the only way to get access to that is a db plan, and companies don't want to offer them anymore, and through insurance companies, right. insurance companies have their own issues addressing the dc market. that could make a difference solving this problem. >> so i think we should -- let's move a little bit to there is this savings crisis, a lot of people don't have the money. so people are really working longer. they're trying to work longer, trying to hang in there, and there's huge variety. does anyone want to talk to the issue of job market, how people are perceived when they're older, yet some of the choices people are creating for themselves. >> it is your turn. >> yes.

so we focus at encore on a narrow slice, the slice we are looking at is not just people working longer but people who are working longer and finding ways to have some social impact, along with their longer working lives. so we are not looking at the whole market from where i sit. but from where i sit, i am looking at an example of working longer in the second row. i wrote a book on this subject and one of the people i profiled is here, so i feel compelled to tell his story very briefly. fred wineberg retired as a new york city parole officer at the age of 55, has been working for 30 more years since in a variety of ways. he is now in his early 80s. he let's me say that because he trusts me and he's still looking for a new job as we speak. so early in his career he got a degree in social work at nyu, and he went and worked, had a long, distinguished career in law enforcement. when he retired, he did a bunch of things that are pretty common

for people that want to continue to work, are healthy enough to continue to work, and who know they have to support themselves another 30 years. yes, he had a pension, he is one of the lucky ones, but he needed extra money. and he faced some of the many things people face later in life. he is a caregiver, another issue that comes up for people. i feel like fred personifies what we are talking about. he was motivated by doing something that mattered at each step of the way. he hooked up with an organization called reserve, which places people over 55 with stipend roles in nonprofits, government agencies, and works with a lot of people who may not need to make what they used to make but still need to make money, want to contribute, want that purpose. he ended up doing work as we say, the kind of work that human beings are needed to do, and he went back to his social work roots and spent a lot of time at hospitals for special surgery, working in a group as a health care navigator, one of the new jobs on the rise.

health care is one of the only growing fields we see. i feel like fred's trajectory is similar to what we are talking about. you're right, fred is not able to take a break. this is continuing. but it provides meaning as well as a financial safety net. the other thing that he did that i've seen people do in a lot of different ways, he went back to improve his skills. he went to the police academy in his 50s, i believe, and became a detective in brooklyn for a period after he retired. so we are doing a lot of work. started with community colleges, four year institutions to figure out what are the kinds of skills enhancements people need if they need to invest in themselves and invest in the market. if you're going to have to continue to work, you're going to need probably a different set of skills than took you to the first place in life. we say institutions have to change.

another set of institutions that really need to change are learning institutions. how are they going to help this generation of people who may not be able to go back and afford a four-year degree, a masters degree, it is certificate programs, short term training, and it is skilling you up for jobs today which weren't the jobs that existed 30 years ago when you first went into the job market. so there say lot of different things. >> add into this, one of the things from people i interviewed in the last year or two is first of all, a degree of variety among those people. they're all in their 60s and older, have had to face taking care of themselves in a particularly new way. they can't retire or they have to downsize significantly. it is one or the other. they either have to keep working or downsize significantly. one of the things i am struck by, one is an executive flipping

burgers at a golf course, in his late 70s now, was out of work a couple years in the recession, pulled himself back in, loves his job. likes the activity of it. another woman younger, 62, lost a couple of jobs, early job loss, divorced, had to downsize significantly. she's living in a friend's basement in cape cod and working at a gym for $13 an hour. but she has a different view on her life, feels it is less stressful than the former corporate life and she's living a more relaxed life on cape cod. so i think one of the things i have seen is a degree of resilience required in older age that maybe was always needed, but i am writing about it, and curious if anyone wants to comment on the psychology of that, even how that effects savings. >> i am trying to -- we look at

thousands of people in our data set, and so what i am finding is that people want to live, and there's what we call psychologically cognitive dissonance, so if you're living in a friend's basement and you're making $13 an hour and you can't do anything about it a natural psychological thing to do is to tell a reporter things are fine, i'm more relaxed. right? but what we do find in this big data set, you can relate to this, if people lost a job involuntarily at any age, but especially older, their rates of depression go up, and it seems to affect their rates of morbidity, how many activities of daily living you need, and eventually affects mortality. how you are treated in the labor market affects mental and physical health. we are also finding, this startled me, carol, i think we

talked about this before, that the jobs older people have now are actually getting worse on three dimensions. i feel i don't have control over my time at work and that it is a question of being monitored. there's a lot more supervision, jobs at the lower hierarchy. that we know from the whitehall studies. if you're at the lower hierarchy, you'll have more risk of inflammation and stroke. there's more bending and stooping 55 to 70 than ever before. we think that's linked to older people taking warehousing jobs.h[ç anybody saw the harpers article about work campers who are working in amazon warehouses that's a phenomena showing up in the data. i love the resilience of the human brain to say whatever i'm doing is just great, but the

real effects in terms of mental health and inflammation, stroke risk, seems to be very correlated with this downward mobility. >> i want to raise an issue. struggle to raise it, and if it takes us off track, we can talk about it. one of the things you talked about, the woman living in someone else's basement. i do a lot of research on racial differences and patterns and wealth. one of the things i think about also in relation to research and to my mother, difference in home ownership rates. part of our glorified storyú: retirement in the u.s. used to be that when people reached retirement, they had a home they paid off. your story made me concerned. i am starting to think also for some semblance of the population, they're reaching old age and don't have that bill they no longer have to take care of.

they still have this rent check. i worry about your friend, right now she's fine. ten years from now when she has a health issue and can't work, there is also that to contend with. we think they won't have any rent check, no mortgage payment, they have somewhere to live at least. and that's an issue we have to deal with as society as well. >> important issue. >> the other thing, too, i think we will get better at understanding this, the presumption that you can just continue to work, and we saw the exception here and kudos i want to talk to you afterwards, find out some of your secrets, but we know that there say great economist at harvard david laceman, and when he speaks, he studies cognitive decline in people as they get older.

starts in your 50s, accelerates through 60s and 70s. i tell him never put -- when you speak at our event, never put this out, because half the room starts to immediately say oh, my god, he's right. i can't remember, i am failing the test he is asking us to take. so but, you know, the take away from that is, you know, we need to think about why did the notion of retirement come about to begin with? it came about in the late 1800s, early 1900s because companies that were as industrialization took effect, you had people operating big machines like locomotives, they realize if you didn't give people opportunity to leave, they wouldn't. so you had people with declined abilities, driving locomotives through rail yards to no good.

so that was kind of how the early retirement systems came about in the u.s. so i think we need to get a good handle on, okay, to the extent there is a crisis, where is the most effective way to having the institutional reforms. i think one of them is we need to understand there are some people that will need assistance flat out. but there always have been people in need of assistance, there may be more of them. there are also people that can work longer if we can create the right labor conditions for that, but we need to make sure they're making the right financial decisions before -- while they still can is the best way of rhc saying it, and again, create the labor market situation so they can do that.

what we don't want is people making important financial decisions as society when they're in their 80s. that's based on research we know today not going to lead to good results. >> given that we are all handling our finances and also our health much more individually, how important at this point are close family ties the difference of people that have that and don't have it. it is a little off this panel, but it is important when you get to that age to have people helping you with this. >> for me, i try to take it back, who is insuring your risk. you can hire a company to do it, buy insurance, buy long-term care insurance if you were in situation to do that, teresa could give us stats on people who can't. but you know, you can do that. another form of insurance is like your family and comes with people that have enough money, i'll give you, you'll get what's left over. if i spend it all, i am coming back on you. it is like this odd kind of little tiny insurance pool of family members. >> let's be clear, it is

daughters and daughters in laws. adult daughters and daughters in law. and it is the general gender division of labor. it turns out to be that the people taken care of by daughters and daughters in law do do a little better, even though they're worse off to begin with or they wouldn't be taken care of so it's hard to disentangle, but it is pretty bad for the woman who is trying to -- she's working because most women do work and actually do the caretaking. even worse when we are taking care of little kids.óx÷ so it does palpably hurt adult women's labor force conditions and we are doing projections hurting her own retirement. so actually not having good care systems, having inadequate income is hurting that next

generation of working women and their families and their own retirement for the next generation. i am going to think of something optimistic to say before i leave! i just haven't figured it out yet! >> we want to take some questions. before we do that, i kept hearing this phrase of 65 is the new 50. and i wanted to ask everyone here what they thought about that and their view, was that good, was that bad, what it made them think of. if you want to comment on that. or don't agree with it at all. >> okay. in my circles we say 65 is basically the new 65. i think by trying to attach these earlier years, one thing you're doing is you are kind of discounting the role that experience can play in life. where i sit, we're really trying

to realize you just said that we need to kind of put new value on the human talent that exists in the aging population. that's the only way we will end age discrimination. owning your age as you age is a very important piece for ending age discrimination. so i think we need to out ourselves. that's why i was happy fred let me say that we are not comfortable with this. we all have to be really comfortable with that. >> so i think individually we are better off today than we were when probably you chose the 50 benchmark, we are on average more healthy, have more human capital, willing to look for opportunities to use it. institutionally, our institutions are in need of help. you have that capability, that potential, but you're not able to use it, and you're in a situation because of some of the changes that we made in the retirement system itself, you may be worse off than a few years ago.

there are good parts of it that you have the opportunity to perhaps spend longer and live better as you live longer, but you're doing that in maybe a context that needs some repair. but again, i think these kinds of events, these kinds of discussions are where the change starts to happen. >> so did you need something like i am teresa and i am 57. i am teresa and i am 57. when i hear that phrase, 65 is the new 50, i think 65 is the new 17, those are the jobs

they're taking. they're working alongside the 17-year-olds. but i really like what you said, that 65 can be the n 17 because there's a lot of worker training that people want access to, not even just in centers, but also at their employment. so one of the unfinished business of the age discrimination act is that there's no discrimination by employers on how much training they give their current workers. even though i can say to you i am teresa and i am 57, if you're at work, don't do that. the strategy would be i would tell everybody, especially if you're a woman, do everything you can to sort of act younger so that you get training. but you might be right. maybe i'm not an activist or revolutionary at heart. or join a union. >> if you are in a position to hire, something you can do as an activist on this issue. you should hire young people. >> and you need capital to be able to hire. and that's 7% of the population. >> i hope that will change quickly.

i think companies are increasingly aware. we are working with a global coalition on aging, they're developing a set of principles, and they have surprisingly large number of well known companies subscribing to the principles about exactly the issues you're talking about. >> i totally agree and there's some hope. >> optimism. >> exactly, right, that the biggest training that happens is on the job and that's where it needs to happen. >> i am optimistic and pessimist it can. 65 is the new 50 is positive for some and negative for others. for some, it is possible to have a second act and support themselves, and think of people more in the situation i am in, it means that i am supporting somebody else for a long time. which it is my mother, my brothers and i love my mother and are excited, but we look at our peers we went to school with, went to the same private schools and college, how much wealth do we have in our position in the life course

compared to what they have. they have parents that still give them money even when they have kids and stuff like that, and we are making payments in the opposite direction. for some people, 65 is the new 50 is not as positive an experience as it is for others. >> 35 could be the new 50, too. in terms of -- >> maybe institutions, we have to think about the variation and experience. that you've been mentioning and not just the average. >> and we are not collectively defined by age any more either. it is where you sit, what your station is. >> that's right, it is very different. >> there's commonalities that aren't age defined that aren't coming up so often in this conversation. >> that's true. >> i would love to open this up to questions. it has been a great panel. want to give you time to say some questions. and you can ask anyone on the panel. >> hi, i am going to out myself,

i am michelle, i am 66. >> hey, michelle. >> i am very clear. i am so glad to see this panel because i don't see a lot of talk about this honestly, meaningful talk. i'm very clear that despite what is called the recovery, mainstream america is struggling to put food on the table. most people are. i have a different mindset. but one thing i believe in is this ability to brainstorm and think of things you love to do that you're good at and create income streams, and i'm surprised there isn't more discussion about that. could be something as simple as walking dogs. i love animals. when my business was slow a few years ago, i put up a card, made