anniversary of the u.s. bombing of hiroshima, japan. that was followed by a second atomic bomb dropped on nagasaki three days later. watch a special edition of american history tv and "washington journal's" co-production of the hiroshima anniversary. we'll look at the strategic situation in the pacific theater leading up to the bombings. president harry truman's decision to use the new weapon, and the legacy of these atomic attacks. enjoy "american history tv" this week and every weekend on c-span3. our next guest served in the obama administration as acting labor secretary, he's currently visiting professor for public affairs at cornell university. here with us to talk about the unemployment and the job situation during the pandemic is seth harris. good morning. and we have you here just a couple of days before the -- the

july jobs number will be released. ahead of that, what sort of trends are you seeing as states begin to report -- have reported a rise in cases and we've seen closures of the economy in some states across the country? >> right. let me start by saying good morning, bill, to you and your viewers. well, the trend lines have not been good. there are two indicators for what's happening with employment. the census bureau is putting out preliminary data that indicate that the percentage of americans who are employed is declining again. and the labor department puts out data about initial weekly unemployment claims. basically people filing for their unemployment benefits for the first time. and those numbers have been pretty stagnant since the beginning of june, and recently have gone to tick up a little bit which is application that there are more people losing

their jobs in the economy. so those two indicators suggest that while we may see some jobs growth when we get the unemployment and jobs numbers on friday, it's going to be a low number at best. and that's going to suggest that this recovery is going to take a good, long time. >> this discussion, our conversation happening and the anticipation of the jobs number on friday, as negotiations are underway on continuing that $600 additional unemployment benefit from the federal government. looking out beyond the next few weeks, how long do you think additional unemployment, whether it be $600 more or less, will be needed for americans? >> the answer is we're going to need the benefits as long as extremely high rates of unemployment continue, and the unemployment is going to continue as long as the economy is in trouble. and that will be true as long as we have the pandemic with us.

there is no separation between managing the pandemic and getting the economy to recover. so these $600-a-week benefits which are absolutely critical to millions of families across the united states, are going to have to continue until families are able to get their breadwinners back into the work force and get the jobs that they need in order to get paychecks that will support their families. you know, the economy really is struggling almost entirely because of the pandemic. we were doing reasonably well. we had trouble with income inequality and wealth inequality and racial disparities in our economy. but at the top high line level, the economy was doing reasonably well. now by every indicator, all of those indicators, we're doing very poorly, maybe the worst economy that we've seen since the great depression. maybe even worse than that. and that's because we are failing to manage this pandemic

successfully. we are not bringing down infection rates, we are not bringing down death rates, hospitalization rates remain high, frontline workers don't have personal protective equipment, we don't have contact tracing and testing throughout the united states -- or at least testing that can be used effectively for contact tracing. so we're failing in the public health approach, and that is causing us to fail on the economic approach. >> our guest, seth harris, the former acting labor secretary during the obama administration talking about unemployment during the pandemic and what your job situation is like. our lines are 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents and others, 202-744-8002. we've also got a special line for those of you whose job's been impacted by the pandemic. that covers a lot of people i'm sure. especially if you've lost your job. that line, 202-748-8003.

and on that issue, we spent the first hour talking on this program about whether schools should reopen. concurrent with that is having parents available to monitor their kids, at least be with their kids. that means those parents working from home. how does that complicate the return to work for those who are actually still employed? >> it's extremely complicated. for working parents of school-aged kids, and we have more than 30 million of those in the united states, having to balance being a caregiver for your child, a teacher's assistant for your child for those who are trying to do remote education while also doing your work, if you can work remotely, not every worker in the united states is able to work remotely, has just proven to be frustrating and difficult for a lot of folks. most people are managing it. those who can work remotely. but you know, there are millions and millions, really tens of millions of workers who have to go to a physical place in order

to do their work. there are two challenges there. one is the challenge of childcare and our childcare system in the united states is under immense pressure. they are suffering horribly with respect to funding. we have schools that are closed. but also those parents are the parents who are most at risk of being exposed to the covid-19 virus. you know, they are the frontline, essential workers who are coming into contact with the public. and in a lot of those workplaces, we're finding extremely high rates of transmission from grocery stores to meat packing plants, transit systems, frontline, first responders, i mean, there is grave risk to those workers. and what they worry about most is bringing the disease back into their home and exposing their children, exposing their partners, their spouses, exposing older members of their families, maybe parents or grandparents. that's really a worry for these workers. and so protecting those workers

has to be part of a larger scheme. we're not going to solve this problem by forcing a bunch of kids back to face-to-face instruction in schools. and i want to make a very important point. schools are also workplaces. schools don't just have kids in them. schools have adults, teachers, teachers assistants, administrators, janitorial staff, cafeteria staff. they also need to be protected. and until we see a system whereby schools successfully protect those workers, as well as protecting the kids, i think it's going to be very difficult for school systems to make the decision to bring kids back into the classroom. >> back to the jobs number again, the jobs number for july comes out friday. this headline from "tech respect," june's good news about jobs may be erased by july's spike in coronavirus cases. the jobless number falling in june from 14.7 to 11.1, i believe. tell us your thoughts, what you

think we'll see when the jobs number comes out on friday. >> it's really volatile. i think it's hard to predict. i would say the likeliest outcome is that we will see some jobs growth, something below two million jobs, which would still be a tremendous number of jobs. i think it's not out of the question that we see flat jobs growth, meaning no jobs growth. i think it would be surprising if we lost the 4.8 million jobs that we were able to add in june. those were mostly people returning to work. in some jurisdictions where they've reclosed the economy, california, arizona, florida, texas, other states that have seen these huge infectious spikes. i think that it's possible that we've seen a shrinkage of jobs in those jurisdictions. but in other jurisdictions, particularly in the northeast, we have seen a lot of people returning to work. i think that that will largely even out and probably lean toward the small amount of jobs growth. remember, we lost more than 21

million jobs in march and april. we recovered about a third of those jobs in may and june. so recovering just a few jobs, even a couple of million jobs now, is not going to be enough to get us on the road to recovery. we really need a concentrated, focused effort on dealing with the pandemic while also dealing with the economy. forcing people back to work, forcing kids into school is the wrong way to go. >> and diving into the numbers a little bit, when we hear the number, the jobs created -- particularly now -- the jobs created number, does the labor department, the bureau of labor statistics, did they set aside -- well, these are the jobs that are returning jobs. these are folks returning to their previous work, and these are absolutely new created jobs? >> yeah. the bureau -- let me say the bureau of labor statistics is the premier statistical agency in the world. i don't just say that because i use today to oversee them, it's true. they're a terrific organization.

they are able to pars out the reasons why people lost their jobs and the reasons why people are going back to work. for example, with the june numbers, we know that the 4.8 million jobs that were created were entirely people returning from temporary furlough to their former jobs. the big concern that we should have is that the number of people on permanent furlough, meaning they've lost their job and they're not going back has been increasing. that number has been increasing, and the percentage of unemployed people in that category has been increasing. so that's something to watch when we get the numbers on friday. >> we'll go to calls for seth harris. we'll hear first from alan in east chicago, indiana. democrats line. >> yes, good morning. longtime listener, big-time fan, "washington journal." thank you for taking my call. i have a question -- i'm confused about the number of people who are actually unemployed. i always assumed that anyone who

got unemployment benefits would be considered unemployed. all of the major cable networks they've been tracking people who are doing initial unemployment filing each week, and it's a total of like 54.6 million i last heard. but the labor department saying there's only 20 million for one month that are unemployed. so i don't know what happened to the other 34.6 million. i assumed these people filed for more than one week. they might file for two, three, four, five week, but they aren't being counted. i would like to know what is the exact number of total people who are unemployed, and do they base it on just everyone who's getting unemployment benefits, or just people who file for the first time? >> alan, that's a terrific question, and good for you for paying close attention to the labor statistics.

so there are a number of different numbers out there. i'll try and clear it up, but i don't want to promise you i'm going to give you an absolutely crystal-clear answer. right now there are about 30 million americans who are receiving some kind of unemployment benefits. that includes traditional employees and because congress expanded the unemployment insurance program, it includes people who were self-employed, people who were independent contractors. they are now getting benefits, as well. some number of those people are not completely out of work. they've just lost some or most of their work or lost a part-time job. so they may not be counted as unemployed by the bureau of labor statistics in the monthly unemployment numbers. the bureau of labor statistics does two surveys. they talk to people, so the household survey and establishments, meaning they talk to businesses. that's how they get the different numbers that they have.

so the unemployment claims numbers tells us who's receiving benefits. what the bureau of labor statistics tells us is people who are out of work, people who have not worked in the preceding week. so there are different numbers, but lets me just say by any count, there are at least 29 million, maybe social security many as 30 million americans who are lost their jobs or who have had a significant reduction in work or have lost a part-time job. those are the people who are suffering from this pandemic recession and who need that -- those unemployment benefits from congress. so my hope is that speaker pelosi and leader schumer are going to cut a deal with the white house and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who doesn't seem to be playing much of a role in these negotiations, will go along with it and get those unemployment benefits going. as long as the other things in the heroes act, which is the house democrats' bill, that will spur the economy and get people back to work. >> sam's next up in thousands oaks, california. independent line.

>> yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a simple question. from personal experience, i know someone personally who's actually making more money through the supplemental unemployment insurance of $600 federal plus the state unemployment, than he used to get while he had a job. so he's not going back to work. why is it right for someone like me who has to work for a job to earn less than someone who would not be working for a job? thank you. >> well, sam, that's a fair question. and this is a big part of the debate that we're seeing over the next covid-19 recovery bill. there are some people who are currently receiving both state unemployment benefits, meaning of the benefits that they would get from their state under ordinary circumstances and an additional $600 from the federal government, and some percentage

of those people are getting more than they would earn in wages. there was a very important study that was released this week from yale university that shows that that has not had any effect or an overall effect on people returning to work. basically, people would like to go back to work, they prefer to earn their living rather than getting unemployment benefits. the reason we need those additional benefits is because there are very, very few jobs in the economy right now. if you take two different data sets from the labor department, there's one that shows that the end of may there were about five million job openings in the united states. and as i said before, there are about 309 million people receiving unemployment benefits. so even if every single open job in the united states were filled by somebody who's unemployed right now, we'd still have tens of millions of people without jobs. we want those people to have as much money as they can get around the amount that they were

earning before because we need them to spend, that keeps the economy growing. we don't want them to be evicted from their homes. we don't want their houses to be foreclosed on. we don't want their cars to be repossessed. we want them to be able to keep the economy going by spending and keeping their families going. that's the way we're going to be able to survive this pandemic recession. >> an observation for you and a question on twitter, seth harris, this one from roland says, "i haven't missed a day of work through this pandemic. i'm in distribution. however, it's flat. phone isn't ringing. i'm checking phone, yep, it's working. just not ringing." and the question -- business is very slow because the $6 shun gone. that's the question because the benefit was ended as of last friday. >> you know, i don't know, roland, why business has slowed down for you. i think it's not out of the question -- for most people the benefit did, in fact, end last week rather than this week.

and so some number of people who had money to spend before last week don't have it now. that is going to be felt in grocery stores, gas stations, landlord/tenant relationships, other places where unemployed workers spend their money to keep their families going. it's going to be felt in retail, eating and drinking establishments. it's really going to be felt. it's billions and billions of dollars each week that goes into people's pockets, and the evidence from a study we did during the great recession shows that when an unemployed worker gets a dollar, they immediately turn right around and spend that dollar. and that's why that money keeps the economy growing. so, roland, i don't know exactly what's happening in your business, but i would say, all across the country now, there are businesses wondering why they've seen a drop-off in their weekly or daily recent, and the reason is -- daily receipts, and the reason is because republicans in the united states senate have refused to go forward with extending this $600

weekly unemployment benefit. >> and for our viewers and listeners, reference on the unemployment rates throughout history. from cnbc, the national bureau of economic research, the high level during the peak of the depression, unemployment rate in the united states, 25.6%. we showed you a chart a few minutes ago, april's unemployment rate was 14.7%, according to the bureau of labor statistics. that line for those of you who have lost your job or certainly affected by the pandemic, 202-748-8003. and sarah's on that line in houston. good morning. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i'm calling in regard to an overlooked situation for substitute teachers. with the school year being pushed back, some teachers, you know, subs aren't going to be able to work. even, you know, if schools don't open at all, that's going to pose a problem. even if there are opportunities

for substitutes to go into a classroom, it's going to be difficult for those in high-risk group to work. so i'm wondering what the situation's going to be for that population of teachers who substitute. >> well, sarah, let me say i'm sorry that you're going through these struggles, and i know it's no consolation for you, but there are lots and lots of people around the country who are experiencing what you're experiencing right now. we have a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen with schools. i think it's going to end up being at most a state-by-state decision. in a lot of states it will be a district-by-district decision. in private schools, it will be the private school administration that makes the decision. this is an excruciatingly difficult decision for these folks to have to make because honestly we don't know what is required in order to keep kids safe and also how to keep teachers like yourself safe in

they face-to-face environment. you know, if there's any population of folks who don't socially distance successfully, it's little kids. and even teenagers. so i your question is going to depend on the state. if you had employment and lost it because of covid-19, you should be eligible for unemployment benefits in most states, but it's going to depend on what your state rules are. ais is going to be frustrating answer, i encourage you to reach out to your state unemployment office. mostare swamped now and states with claims and questions like the ones you have. toncourage you to reach out your state unemployment office. everyone who has lost a job or has fear of losing available. everybody who has lost a job or is in fear of losing a job t should try to figure out what they're going to do in order to be able to support themselves. i don't want to see people can v tapping their savings, certainly notoi tapping their retirement savings if nay can avoid it.unds

tap into tsee people the available government funds e to support themselves while this recession continues. offne those states struggling with some of that is california. news" lifornia's "mercury with the headline, 1.13 million unemployed california workers trapped in edd payment limbo. edt to the california 889,000 california workers, we can't approve these claims at this cal time. anne is in ripley, west virginia. republican line.today. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i hope everyone's having a great day today.hy did my first question is why did thu unemployed get the $600-a-week a bonust plus the stimulus direc payment? and my -- i call that double dipping. and my second question is why can't they eliminate the 600 anc just do direct stimulus payments to everyone where it's equal across the board until this

pandemic's over? thank you. >> thanks, anne. reaso i think that's a perfectly fair question. the reason that they were given the stimulus check, the $1,200 per-adult, $500 per child stimulus check, was they neededt itil very desperately just as many, many other americans who are still at work need that . money. and the goal of that money, remember, is not really some kind of reward for people. it's to keep the economy going as much as we possibly can in r the midst of a recession. you know, because of the pandemic, because the pandemic has spread throughout our communities, people are deeply fearful, and government is amatc shutting down large segments ofs theingl economy. so commerce has slowed very dramatically. we saw the largest single drop in gross domestic product, the measure of goods and services being sold and bought in our economy. last quarter we saw the largest single drop in gdp that we've sl

seen since the measurement has been taken. that is really disturbing. so that happened even though people were getting this be muc additional government money.h without the government money, our economy would be much worseo off, and we would suffer le who permanent nharm. so my view is give the money to the people who need it most.p they will turn right around and spend it. and that will keep stores and businesses and landlords and -- and manufacturers and others grn going to some extent until we can deal with the pandemic and get the economy growing again. so i think that's an importance part of an economic strategy. i would say it's not ideal. it's not the way anyone would f like to see it run. but frankly, in a situation likn this when you haveg a crisis, vp you're not going to be able to give a perfect policy. what you want to aim for is a fa good policy. the $600 extra benefit, the $1,200 checks, those are good

policies helping us survive in a difficult time. >> here's what the house and senate measures -- and those bn areas, the unemployment and direct payments propose. the houseth passed the heroes a in late june. that measure would provide direct payments of $1,200 per family, up to $6,000 per household. plus a $600 weekly federal unemployment benefit extended through january, e senate2021. twant to show what the senate has proposed.m the u. the trillion-dollar, what's being called the heals act fromu the u.s. senate.00 their measure would reduce the unemployment increase to $200 weekly.ents and the direct payments part of that republican proposal, $1,200 per individual and $2,400 per couple. let's hear from susan in baltimore on our democrats' line.r. good morning. susan -- susan joining us, sounds like you're in the car. turn down your volume, and go ahead with your comment.n wald we lost her. we'll go to arianna in waldorf,

maryland.ller: good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> hi. >> caller: so basically tired of the pandemic. i work and always worked two jo jobs.i did no mgm was out of option and then unemployment benefits -- i did not receive them until may. my mom at the time, the only one working. so there was no income because everything's backed up. now mgm, i wasn't able to -- they laid us off at mgm. now i'm only working at kohl's, and i'm only getting $100 and something a week. and the hours that i was getting have been drastically reduced. so you know, we talk about the e benefits. i mean, and then i had people ai

say, you know, fortunately they don't want the benefits becaus'' the majority are african-americans, sitting home, receive benefits and don't want to work.k that i would love to work. but i would like to work that's going to benefit me, as well. so that's kind of the dilemma that i am. and everything that i have is backed up. i'm at the risk of losing, you know, my car and everything else. what with can you do with $107 month -- i mean a week? >> arianna, thanks for sharing your story. seth harris, your comments? >> yeah.ibly arianna, let me say first i'm e terribly sorry for the struggles that you're encountering. there are millions of stories just like yours across the tate united states right now. let me just say the struggles re that t states have had in payin these unemployment benefits are not a surprise to those of us n who work with the unemployment d system. the unemployment systemupda hasn underresourced, has not had many updated technology, has not had

updated data systems for many years. we get c knew about this, but wo never able torder get congress appropriate the money that was t necessary in order to be able to update these systems. every state has its own system. some of them are updated, the states that have plenty of money. other states have very oldre arl systems, they're creaky, they'rj slow. they're understaffed. they just are not able to deal with these claims. that's why arianna and others t had to wait weeks or months in h order to get their benefits.'ve that's one of the lessons of this experience. -- pa we've got to pay close attention to these public systems.ever everybody in them is trying to do the right thing.ve the they just don't have the resources they need in order to be able to succeed. and arianna's point about, you know, it's -- she's at risk of losing her car, she's at risk of her family really being thrown k out in the street, that's a allc serious risk for americans all across the united states. this argument that is at the core of the senate republicans'

argument against the $600 addeda benefits is that people want to sit at home, and they don't want to work. and we're incentivizing them to sit at home. why would they go back to theire jobs? there just isn't any evidence that that's true. we hear anecdotes from individual employers that they can't get a particular worker to go back to work. but as a general matter, people want desperately to go back to work if they can do it safely. they want to get back into a regular, reliable earnings mode. they want to get that paycheck. but they're not able to do it because of the state of the . economy. it's not their fault, it's not the fault of unemployed people that they're not able to work, i it is the fault of thes people who are failing to manage this pandemic properly, who are irusu failingnd to get this coronavir under control and get the oachin economy back to something approaching normal.g so the idea of punishing unemployed people in hopes that they'll go back to a job that t doesn't exist anymore is kind op a futile and silly and, frankly,

cruel approach to public policy. >> and for arianna and others, the house-passed measure, the heroes act, includes $75 billion in homeowner assistance funding and $100 million in rental assistance. the question for you from eli ir florida who asks this -- how e i does mr.on harris see the impac of all the stimulus packages onc the national debt?t d what is the real impact in alr growing the national debt in seems we are already at an impossible number, $26 trillion, to recoup.>> i t >> well, i think that's a legitimate concern to have, eli. and you know, the national debt has beentr growing dramatically under president trump. but in circumstances like those that we're in right now where the private sector has had to , retrench, has had to reduce its spending, reduce its demand, the only option is for government tt step in and spend. right now fortunately, interest rates are close to zero.ey

so we're borrowing that money at essentially no cost to the to american taxpayer. and so that's the right thing to do to keep our economy from really collapsing completely. we had a big downturn, but frankly, it could have been significantly worse. and any hope ofpe of recovery going to be focused on the government spending money to geo us going again.ing right now, just to sustain us, but also the government spending money to get things going againo that's what it's going to he require. so i'm not tooficit worried abe ledger sheet right now, what thg deficit looks like, or what the debt looks like.over tim it is something we're going to have to deal with over time. but we're not going to be able to reduce the debt by slashing c spending andonom collapsing the economy. the only way to get there is to get the economy to grow, get money into people's pockets, recover from the pandemic, and get the american economy to be the -- the growth engine of the world economy again. >> and on the independent line

next is bob in norwalk, connecticut. >> caller: hi, good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i have to say that mr. harris, i think you're at d best disingenuous when you responded to the gentleman who asked or pointed out that some 6 people are00 getting paid more being unemployed with the $600 supplement than people who are working. the fact of the matter is that last week, c-span had someone on who indicated -- and seemed to be bipartisan, and which you clearly are not, but seemed to be bipartisan, and he quoted a statistic. he said two-thirds of the people are receiving greater benefits ---- more money from the supplement than they are when they were working.dicate two-thirds. and then there was a texas congressman who came on who alst indicated that 75% of the peopls in his district, his countiy,

about 75% were receiving more at than. that'sing what going on.ju and also to say that the republicans don't want to give people money and supplemental money, that's not what they're saying. they're just saying it's too ala much. they set it, they also said it when the first c.a.r.e.s. act was passed. they said it's going to create a problem, it's going to be too much money. i can tell you as a financial's professional, let me give a quick example -- there's a client of mine who goes to these trade shows, you know, to make arts and crafts. those things have been shut down. at best over the years, maybe she netted $500 from her receii business. she's receiving, receiving the $600 plus a supplemental because she was self-employed, called pua, another $191 every week. $500 was the best she ever situt earned, and that's what she's receiving. i have another situation where a young kid left college and ng at year off.take a he started bussing tables and doing odd jobs like that, living

at home. making about $200 a week. he's now receiving almost $900 a week and not working. those are the facts, and there's a lot of that going on. but again, i refer back to the individual that was on c-span last week, and i read this number -- again, i'm a financial professional. i read this number -- it's a big number. whether it's 66%, whether it's 70%, 60%, it's a big number. >> all right, we'll let you go and hear from seth harris. >> bob, so don't particularly like beingree w accused of bein disingenuous. i agree with you. there are peoplere getting more money from unemployment insurance than they were earnins before they lost their jobs.eres the question is, what effect does that have, right? where is the evidence of what effect that has? simply stating that fact does ar not tell us what the consequence of that fact is. the truth of the matter is there is no evidence that the fact

that people are getting additional money is keeping fa, people from going back to work. in fact, in most states, not all, but in most states, if youy are offered your old job back l underos the unemployment insuran system and you say no, you losee your eligibility for unemployment insurance. them so these benefits that people t are getting are supporting them at maybe little bit more than they were earning before.their that's what's allowing them to o pay their mortgage, pay their ie rent, pay their bills, not end up getting thrown out in the street. but if they are offered their old job back, they have to go and take that job. econo and there's no evidence that ts anything else is happening in ic the economy. so this idea that somehow people are on the gravy train because'' they're unemployed is, frankly,o that's what's usdisingenuous.: that's the argument that's disingenuous. >> comment from sam in wildwood, georgia, on texas 202-748-8003.m

he says, "i don't understand why people keep complaining about others havingant a few extra dollars. if youe it want to get the econ going, that's how it goes. where for some, it's the first time f they've had money. why keep them down? jonatha aren't we all in this together?" to jonathan in north carolina, r republican :line. >> yes, sir.00 a i'm trying to find out why -- i'm a truck driver. i'm earning roughly $1,000 a week. i know there's jobs out there a' because i've had to look to get. there one just recently. and i've seen the people making $600 a week staying home. now i'm a little sore about it c because i do want to get out here and work. i went through the last economi depression we had back in the e early 2000s where' i got laid of and had to join the military. i understand there's work out there, and i understand there are people that do want to work. but i know there are also jobs. they might not be the jobs you

want, they might not be the ideal job of your future, but ix do know that there are jobs out there.s wi ith have a problem spending my t dollars with people that are ent making more now on this -- on this new benefit, unemployment e benefit, than they were making before. i have a problem with it. i don't feel like it should be me out here slaving to earn $300 more a week on average than someone sitting at home. >> all right, jonathan.. seth harris? >> well, let me say i'm really glad that you were able to get that job. and thanks for taking that job on. and good for you, $1,000 a week is a ingood, solid income in ou economy. so i'm delighted that that worked out for you. i look at the national numbers. and the truth of the matter is that there are six people collecting unemployment benefits right now, six, for every open job inif our economy. as i said before, even if every single person who was unemployet

and could find a job and fill that job, you'd still have more than 20 million people who didn't have a job. and also, remember that not everybody can do every job.has,y for example, in order to do thed job thatri jonathan has, truck r driver, you have to have a commercial driver's license, not everybody has that. not everybody has the requisitei training. some jobs may be in silicon vall valley, coders and other kind of things. you have to get the skills training in orders to do that.d. it doesn't happen ' instantly. you have to spend money in order to get the training that you need. some jobs may not be in the local where people are located. and you know, are people going to move across the country in order to get a job? some will, some won't.ant also i wantpo toin focus on thiy very important point. i worked with a company called remesh which is a mass online af focus group company. and we did a focus group last -- month and a half ago with workers asking them about their attitudes about returning to work.0 andd what we find from that mass

online focus group of 300 fear workers is that there is deep and pervasive fear among lots and lots of people of this covid-19 crisis.r they really worry about getting sick or making members of their family or their extended circle sick. andic gettingularly people back, particularly in jobs where they're going to have to be face to face withq9. customers, isg to be extremely difficult unless we see evidence that employers are takingg seriously the need o protect their workers from the o virus. lots and lots of workplaces, we are seeing evidence of the opposite. see rt that employers are not being use careful enough.. we see retail establishments that allow customers to come in with mow masks.s. we see packing houses, meat and chicken packing houses where the workers have not been protected, and thousands have gotten sick and dozens have died. we see transit workers and othe workers who are in regular contact with the public getting sick, and some of them dying.vin

so workers are very worried about going back to work in this environment. and let me say there are real 43 racial disparities here. in our focus group, 43% of white workers felt it was safe to go back to work. but only 21% of latin workers oe and rs f18% of african-american workers felt it was safe tagg th back to work. that's an understandable response by black and latin x workers toto the experience tho communities have had over the last several months because the. have been much more likely to get infected, much more likely to die. so i think the fear factor is incredibly important here. i think it's the leading economic indicator in the united states right now.w. the folks don't want u to catch thi coronavirus. >> let's go to -- wrong line. let's go to dolores, i think that's it, windsor mill, nam maryland. go ahead.es.

>> caller: yes. hi. my name's dolores.year i'm 61 years old. i was working since i was 15 years old at a hotel, doing ingl concierge l lounge. i work where many people are traveling all over the world. so the hotel employees stopped working since march the 15th.. okay, now my income coming in every week is this $239. so the $600 that they was give r be us was a big help to workers that work in hotels and your hospitality. >> and dolores, are yououfull - you still working your full schedule that you were before? >> caller: no, i'm not working e at all. >> you're not working at all. got it. >> caller: no, no employees are working at the hotel right now because they shut us down since march the 15th. and i feel as though the $600

was doing us real good.. >> okay.any c appreciate your experience. seth harris, any comment? >> yeah, dolores, you happened to work in one of the industries that was the industries that was most hard hit by this pandemic. all those industries where there's face to face interaction with folks, hospitality, eating and drinking establishments, travel, those industries -- retail got hit so hard right at the beginning and that disadvantaged a lot of women like dolores. those industries tend to have a disproportionately large percentage of women working there as well as workers of color. and so there are folks who are e being disproportionately affected by this pandemic they m recession and the ideaay that w should take money out of their pockets because we think they may be getting a little extra money out of the system to me

isn't fair and isn't the right n way tog go. if we're worried about people oi gettingn too much money, reallya cheating thems system, let's ta a closer look at some of the folks who got money in these business loans programs, businesses that easily could s u havet gotten money from public equity markets, but instead borrowed money at low cost from the federal government in millions of dollars. that's really where we should be focusing our outrage, focusing the attention of the public lobbying our senators and congress people to do oversight to make sure that the people who get the business loans in the hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars, those people are the people who need it most who are keeping their workers on the payroll who are helping their communities to thrive, who are surviving this pandemic recession and not focuses who are just cronies of the current administration in the washington and helping to

line their pockets. that's really what we need to be outraged about and focused on. >> our guest was acting labor secretary and the obama administration seth harris, now visiting professor at cornell on public policy. we appreciate your input this morning here on washington journal. >> thank you, bill. less than three months to election day, we're joined by the chair of the public interest legal foundation to talk about election security,. welcome to "washington journal." tell us about your foundation. what's its mission. >> it's dedicated to protecting the integrity of your elections and to serve as a counter to the myriad leftist groups that are very well funded and have existed for many years who are filing lawsuits all over the country to try to upend the election laws of the