for our schedule, go to cspan.org. >> edward glazer talked about the state of employment in the u.s. by looking at labor market trends and government policy. he also spoke about the impact unemployment was having on suicide, divorce rates, and drug abuse. from the manhattan institute in new york city, this is an hour. >> as you know, it is a poly math who uses economics as a tool to try to understand the world and figure out ways to improve the human condition. one of the great public intellectuals, always provolcano tiff and very perceptive. gary becker once remarked that before ed burst onto the scene in the 1990's, urban economics was dried up. no one had come up with new ways to look at cities. ed continues to redefine

politics, particularly urban economics where his harvard where he has taught since 1992. he has done papers on why cities rise and fall. and triumph of the city became a "new york times" best seller. one of the first -- was titled why are skilled cities getting more skilled. today he is revisiting the u.n. capitol team with a discussion of whether 12 years later we have reached, quote, the end of work. as someone who sent in his full-time college tuition bill, let me say i hope the answer to that question is a solid no. please join me in welcoming ed

glazer. . >> thank you. i'm honored that you have given me your time. this lecture is not about things at the core of my research. it's about the social problem that i think is america's largest. you may think it's odd that an academic is not the most important thing is that he works on. that's unusual. this is something that disturbed me and i think it should disturb you. my objective in the next 20 minutes is not to convince you that i think i know the right answers for dealing with this, but to convince you that this is the great social problem facing america today. what you are looking at here is the employment rate, not unemployment rate.

the two together for prime age males from the 1950's through today. when i was born in 1967, 5% of prime age males were jobless. that had more or less been true tore 20 years before that. today, more than 15% are jobless. this is an enormous change. during every crisis the employment rate drops and comes back half as much. i think that's what we're seeing again in this crisis. when you parse together what's been happening -- i'm putting this up so you don't feel too good about the slight decline at the end. when you look at the data cutting it apart, you see 25 to 34-year-old employment has come back. the young people, people not immediately fired when they were in 2007, the people who were 17 in 2007, they are reentering the labor force. when you turn to the 35 to 44-year-olds -- i didn't show you because it looks the same.

the 45 to 54-year-olds, they are out. those drops are down and appear to be permanent. that's what you are seeing here. now, howard pointed out a report that's come out this month from the council of economiced a advisors. i don't agree with all the recommendations in the report, but i am glad they are casting a light on this. the triangles show where we were in 1990. if you look at 1990, the u.s. was 10% nonemployment, which puts us less than germany, less than norway. today we're at 17%. we're in a very different place. we are profoundly moving in the wrong direction. one thing i want you to take

away from this -- germany was significantly higher in 1990 than it is today. this reflects real and hard changes that germany made to labor market laws over the past 15 years. i think that's a minimum of what's required to do many this country -- in this country. there's a tripling of the share of prime-age males. in may 1996 there was 73.8 million americans who were not employed. may 2016, u.s., 112 million. huge increase. the employment to population ratio differs by education. 72.5% of college graduates are employed. massive gaps of education within these groups.

the background is a combination of trends in the labor market and government policies which interact with them in a poisonous manner. there's been rise in the number of disability recipients. this is a boring graph, but it makes a point, right? disability, 4 million people on the rolls in 1995. up to nine million today. math has changed in disability. this is not because americans have gotten sicker. this is a choice about a public policy program that strongly discourages people from working. if there's a theme here, it is not that there's anything wrong with the impulse to people who have been hurt. i believe in that. but there's something wrong when government policies put strong disincentives to people working. we all get upset when we think about high-skilled people who face tax rates of 50%.

it's bad. those people have relatively nice jobs, they go to work and get respected. they have a tradition of work. how about when we have tax rates of 70% 90% for people at the other end. they lose 30 cents on the dollar because of the housing vouchers. other benefits they will lose. we have effective tax rates for the poor that can be close to 100%, but we don't need to look farther to understand why work looks so unappealing to so many americans. now, accompanying this -- this is i think a really important point. in some sense there weren't government policies that discouraged work. every unemployed person is failure of entrepreneurial imagination. the recipe for this, the thing that needs to come out against underemployment is we need new start-ups. we need new ideas, new firms for people to come up with things to

do. we have a crisis with entrepreneurship in this country. in the mid 1990's we were over 4.5 a year. now we're under three million. very large decline in the amount of employment being created by new firm. ok. now, this is a backdrop. let's look at the public policy response. the focus is on income and wages, not on underemployment. let me give you a couple of quotes from our political leaders. from the 2016 state of the union, equal pay for equal work. paid leave. applause. raising the minimum wage, applause. these things matter to hard-working families. i agree. but they are probably not going to be working after all those things are done. bernie sanders leading the fight in the senate for $15 an hour minimum wage and a union for fast food workers. all the focus is on the wages.

no focus at all on the underemployment problem. sort of a deaf ear to this wave. nan nancy -- each month that you are on unemployment insurance, you face a disincentive preventing working. the extension would make a difference of 600 thousanded jobs, she claimed. i think she has the sign wrong. i think it's more likely to eliminate 600 jobs than to create 600,000 jobs. i take the view that nonemployment, unemployment is a far worse social problem than stagnant wages. making sure someone's wage is going up 2% is small potatoes relative to making sure that americans have jobs, feel like their lives have a purpose, feel

like they are contributing to society. there's data on happiness -- that the unemployed are deeply unhappy. suicide rates are dramatically higher for the unemployed and there appears to be a correlation. divorce rates double the rate for the unemployed. drug abuse higher for the unemployed. nonemployment has a pervasive and painful tendency to become permanent. so this comes from my own work on unhappy cities looking at the reduction in happiness relative to being employed and earning over $75,000. let's say you earn $60,000.01 is miserable and four is gleeful on the scale. if you go down to 35 to 50 k,

you lose .25 on this scale. if you lose your job, unemployed, it's reduction of one. it's a distance five times as large. how you can look at this and think moving people up to 33 k, relative to making sure people don't end up in the bottom category where they are miserable. economists have had a tendency to understate the cost of unemployment. maybe unemployment is voluntary, maybe people are having a great time being unemployed. i think if there's anything that i have taken away from behavioral economics, this is the wrong way to think about unemployment. this is a state that traps and people are unable to muster a way to change things. one of the tables very helpful,

showing what the -- this is nonparticipating prime age men. i had a graph. women do useful things. they take care of their families, do a bunch of nice stuff. what do boys do? mostly it's tv. ok? there's a lot of television, right? the numbers of minutes per day socializing is 472 minutes. i don't think i have done that in the last year in terms of minutes of socializing. 335 minutes a day watching television. so maybe if you started with the hypothesis that watching tv made you happy, you would be surprised by the low happiness data. this is not a recipe for feelings of life satisfaction, spending five and a half hours a day watching television. but that's what they are doing. they sleep a little bit more, but spend no more time caring for household members. now, there's new work -- and

this is from a paper last year that came out showing what shouldn't surprise you, that unemployment is associated with massively more suicides than slowdowns in economic growth. suicide is tied to being alone, being socially disconnected. we are social creatures. it's why cities are so successful. the bond to people around us keep us healthy, whole, make us smarter, stronger. the terrible thing about nonemployment is you break those bonds. you're away in your home watching television, you lose all the support networks that we have around us in various ways. this has catastrophic impact on life satisfaction. it also has catastrophic impacts on divorce rates. this is from finland, i think. but this is a very easy-to-read -- which divorce -- the husband

being unemployed, the divorce goes up 80%. if you look across between one and five, there's almost no difference. income isn't causing the huge difference. it's unemployment. it's the social disconnection that is powerful. this is drug use. again, very moderate effects on income. very large effects of being nonemployed. so about 18% of the unemployed have used an illegal substance in the last month as opposed to 8% of the population. massive difference here. this is from my work on opioid deaths. so what we have done here is we have just looked at the relationship. as you can see, it's variables in our data set that has the strongest correlation with the rise in opioid death is what share of the population was

beyond 25 years ago. that's about joblessness and hopelessness but also about things that happen with disability as well. this is one of the many papers. this shows what happens if you get laid off in 22. you'll get your job back eventually. but off permanent impact of about 5% on your wages going forward. so these early unemployment spells are not free by any stretch of the imagination. they are a permanent change to labor market outcomes. i apologize for this. this is a 15-year-old graph from a really, really great paper. it's just the graphics are awful. what this is showing is the clusters of unemployment rate across european countries. the point of this paper is that

a combination in europe of their labor market protection -- you started having social democracy in the '60's and '70's. these safeguards didn't start working there. by the 1980's when you had the construction of the oil shops, you have people laid off and the cocoon of the system takes over and all of a sudden they are in a system in which they no longer have incentives to go to work. they have incentive to stay home. they are connected to people who are out of work rather than being in work. long-run unemployment follows from this. in some sense there's a difference between northern europe and southern europe and its reaction. this is the germany point, this is the sweden point. variety of northern democracy 15 years ago saw this and responded. they sensibly understood they could not go on with this

system. they loosened up the labor markets, whereas southern europe, italy, greece, spain did nothing. those problems are very much with us. you have to ask yourself tonight are we norway, germany, or greece. we're at that threshold right now as a country, whether we'll go one way or the other. now, i'm just going to go through a few of the policies that i think make up the war on work. again, they are motivated by very understandable reasons. they are motivated by desire to make the lives of people who do work better. but they are not motivated with any attempt to try and solve the underemployment problem. so extending new eyes, one example. these drastic extensions of unemployment insurance in the face of recession worked i think in the wrong direction because they eliminated the incentive to actually go back to work.

housing vouchers -- each one of these programs imposes a 30% tax on earnings. disability payments. today we're in the midst of a $15 minimum wage craze, right? i'll go back to this in a little bit in terms of the new evidence that occurs with minimum wage. because american minimum wage stayed low so long, we are in a position to forget that minimum wage can have effects. we compared new jersey with differences. >> let me show you data you should know. this is a classic paper by bruce meyer.

the basic fact is -- what you are supposed to take away from this, there's a 5% chance of getting a job during the time you're on ui. it sparks up just as ui payments are running out. that's this fact. i think it's telling that when the cash runs out, you suddenly start looking for work, which means if i double the number of weeks you're getting ui, i'm going to keep the number of weeks that you are not looking for work there. this is a paper, what they are looking at is the extension of disability compensation for veterans. this was particularly for type two diabetes and motivated by agent orange during the vietnam war. those people that had boots on the ground in vietnam had access to this. and the people who served during that time period did not. so they are able to compare these two groups which look relatively similar before and

afterwards. after 2001, there's a huge gap that wides between the boots on the ground people versus the nonboots on the ground people. among the group that takes it up, 20% leave the labors for, even though this doesn't have the same strong effect as disability, they are still getting out of the labor force. let me remind you the difference between guaranteed basic and guaranteed minimum. this is the alternative to how you want to think about ui and disability insurance. when people talk about guaranteed minimum income, they mean where you get fixed amount. as you earn more, you -- guaranteed basic -- the economics of that -- the economics are better, but you're giving people cash and that's it. no strings attached.

the absence of the amount of cash does pose a problem. [laughter] >> the idea, it's relevant for disability insurance and unemployment insurance. the effects of these are because they discourage work or because they are tied to not working. the government, i cannot tell you what an awful thing i think this is. our government stops people from going to work. something that says when you get unemployed, you get a check based on your expected duration. maybe we require you to look for work, but we don't stop the payments when you go back to work. same thing with disability. we give them a check, there's a proven medical condition. you don't reduce it. in some sense this puts the normal fears about disability on its head. offer the fears are, it's terrible, working, getting disability. this is a clear case of fraud. we should worry less about fraud and worry more about the fact that we're stopping people from

using their talent to make world better. that is the more important problem. the natural way to get rid of both is to give people checks over time and don't make it dependent upon them not working. the government needs to stop bribing people to be idle. this is the fundamental point. the minimum wage. jeff clemones was a former student from harvard, has a paper that looks at the impact of minimum wage during the great recession. again, 20 years ago there's this state of paper around new jersey and pennsylvania. what's happened after 2007 was there was a bump up in the minimum wage that hit poor parts of america. not new jersey, pennsylvania. low-wage states. it particular mattered for low-skilled people. this shows the fear -- note

that the states that were bound, they have lower minimum wages to begin with. they started out with more young high school dropouts working because they didn't have a minimum wage. that's one plausible view. it starts falling as the minimum wage comes in. it falls and falls again and falls again. by the end of it, once the minimum wage is lower and they converged on each other, you cease to have the difference. clemmons estimated an 5.6 decrease in the group due to minimum wage which represents 43% of the overall decline in the unemployed group. moving wages to $15 is going to be a recipe for disaster for the less-skilled workers of our service industries. there's a nice paper 20 years ago now that made the point that the new jersey pennsylvania was just too small.

i urged us to look at puerto rico, which had higher minimum wages relative to earnings. the employment rate -- when it goes up, the employment rate goes down. puerto rico employment -- a more stringent minimum wage than we did in continental 48. the employment rate fell more dramatically. this boom for the age, that thing that upsets me most is the morality of it. it's not the economics are bad. it's this perverse notion that we're going to have redistribution in this country. you know where we're going to pay for it? not taxpayers. not, you know, people who have means. we're going to get the customers of walmart to pay for the minimum wage. we're going to get the people

who are buying hamburgers at mcdonald's in high poverty areas, they are the people we are going to ask to pay for the minimum wage because when you impose higher wages in the service industry, it's going to be passed along to customers. that means we are trying to do redistribution on the backs of the poor. that's what this is in fact all about. it's an absolutely daunting thing. on top of the fact that to the extent to which the only groups in this world i think fighting to solve the underemployment problem, they should be hailed as heroes, not as villains. is there a better path? sure. can i promise that we solve this thing? no. but there are ways to move in the right direction rather than in the wrong direction. one of the bright lights that we had in this country over the last 25 years in terms of getting people to work with the earned income tax credit.

it's deeply complicated. it's a recipe for fraud in lots of ways. make it simpler. make it -- push the wage up through the tax code, through our spending rather than imposing it on workers. eliminate the payroll tax for lower-earning workers. make work pay as much as you can. it will be costly. it's not free. but it makes a lot more sense than trying to impose it by raising the minimum wage for service industries. eliminate all jobless requirements in federal programs. get rid of any part of disability insurance or ui that means payment contingent upon not working. we'd have to reduce the amounts in some cases, but there's no reason why you need to make these things contingent upon not

working. >> so does this stuff work? we have a great example from norway which actually experimented with the disability program. they said you could keep a buck for every two that you make, up to a threshold. once you go over the income, it's gone. you're losing your di. in this case you get to keep 50 cents on the dollar. this r

there is no reason why you couldn't do this. there is no reason why norway is more forward in this area. possible product skills. we have to reform the government programs but we have to think about providing training in a way that it makes a difference. it trains kids in cambridge public schools. it does so in a way by having them sell things on ebay. they are moving in into madison park high school in boston, a vocational school.

work,t know the this will but what we need in this country is not to think we know the answer. we need a flourishing of all the kind of innovative ideas that people in this room already have. products and places where they did think there was one. if it does work we will scale it up if it doesn't we will try something else. this is how things should work in this world. innovation centers. talking -- two years ago i was talking about the time to create enterprise zones within high poverty areas. there are two ways to think about it sound. one in which we just brought people to relocate. this is not the right way to go.

the other vision of a zone is a reform zone. you can try things but you couldn't get throughout the city as a whole. , town inpermanent massachusetts, called dozens, it means you go with one person, one person is in charge of making sure the business gets through. if i can get one stop -- in business i would take it i cannot. we do it for the most traffic areas doing it. unsurprisingly the city of boston is much more enthusiastic with local funds like this. i will take what i can get so this involves creating some degraded -- degree of training.

we need to keep pushing. entrepreneurs are the answer. every time we put a barrier on entrepreneurship we say no to a teen who might have a better future. this is one of my favorite stories of local entrepreneurship and regulation. it is a story about detroit. aere was the cause of celebrity of this woman who runs a food truck pitch you wanted to start a food truck in detroit. ofd trucks are a pick cause mine. i.e. at 145 times a day. for this area. it enables people get started

and do something new and creative. they are so often held back by rules. the idea that detroit is saying no to any entrepreneur seems like madness. particularly for this very appealing thing. , thiscal restauranteurs is the last thing they wanted. i was on a show at this woman and a person from the city of detroit. this guy was being,. he says a lady, just go ahead and start your food truck. we'll never catch you. i guess i wanted to indiana story because it does give me .ope the country is full of entrepreneurial people and people who for centuries and coming up with new ideas to not

just make them rich but also him employ thousands of other people. we need to have a change of skills,hat includes vocational training, entrepreneurial training. andeed to reduce regulation make sure it is easy to start a food truck, and stop paying people not to work. are ahead. changes i hope you will join me in this fight. thank you. [applause] myers, the civil rights coalition. i have a question about the

visa, the endthe of work. what about the work ethic? what are the trend and data with respect to retirement? do people retire after a long time because they work too hard enough smiley retire, and looking for to leisure? or do they stop working and i get bored by not working and going to leisure? what about the issue of work ethic by those who are employed? how do we know the people who are employed with respect to working asapt to be opposed to using social media all day? >> two questions, one about there are lots of people who have significant issues that retirement who feel back.misery and many come some people are able to find committed, it's about making

sure your life has purpose. if you are doing things come i think of my 90 year old grandmother who is doing literacy training in her town. stuff, butan out of it seems like every cabdriver i have in boston is a guy who retired two years ago i couldn't stand it and is now driving a car because they were so miserable being alone or their wife or so miserable being home so they had to send him back. the second question was about work ethic. the government's job is not to work against that. trusting theabout federal government with being in charge of any ethical training. parent, that is the most important job i have. i do thing as -- things as member of the community, as neighbors, people who go to our churches or synagogues, that's where that training is communal as well.

i think it is harder to think that it is a public goal. mayor who rules be to the virtues of hard work rather than the opposite. unionization, i think it depends on which type of unions. just tell a story on this. unions, twoe on years ago i did a town hall with maher walsh who was just elected. we were there sitting up setting up, we have two partners. teams, of mayor walsh's he comes out of the construction industry. at 6:00 a.m., his guys were there. every single one of them were there and working like dogs. other partners were the teaching

staff of the college. they were less present. , we we think about unions need to recognize -- some were quite well. whereas we think about some is micromanaged. one-size-fits-all, --. if i interpreted the chart correctly, i am curious why it seems that both the unemployed and the employed are sleeping more than 12 hours a day. that is not my question. it is well-established that

throughout history technology and innovation have created more jobs than they destroyed. >> other including sleep. it's not just sleep. if i interpreted the chart correctly. do technology and innovation, these days more economists are saying that this time it is different, including the columnist on the right. what is your view on what technology and innovation are doing now and what will they do with the next generation? is there a new trend or not? >> it certainly is when you think about bill gates and a henry ford. henry ford innovated in ways and employed hundreds of thousands of low skilled americans. the innovator of the computer age did much less than that, many of the innovations that employ highly skilled workers.

it isn't that hard to think of really great examples is one that i will come to an a second. there were tax entrepreneurs that employed less skilled workers. silicon valley, the fact that is in possible to build anything under five billion bucks there. the bulk of the technology has moved in the wrong direction from employing less skilled americans. we have a counterexample which is googler. huber is the opposite. the company that provides employment for lots of less skilled people. you didn't face major distortions it's hard not to think that in the longer run more entrepreneurs will see that promise.

that is an opportunity. we have a lot of entrepreneurial imagination in this country. i think it is true that the last 40 years employed highly skilled workers, and it has been targeted toward higher skilled employees. there is nothing written in stone. when there are opportunities, uberunderemployed workers strip -- uber took advantage of that. i am ceo of american works and i'm amazed by your data. i think it is fantastic.

work with this advantage people, giving them jobs all the time. one of the things which we see every day is how much work socializes people. if you think of inner-city young people or people coming out of prison and minorities who have never worked, when you give them talk, they suddenly differently, they walked differently, they dress differently. they in gauge -- and gauge in the world. that is valuable. so many people on the far left that think that income support is just the best thing. they have never talked to these people. the last vestige of socialization is work in our society, because of communities and churches breakdown, schools breakdown. -- employment still provides it. i just wanted to ask you if you have looked at that, to us that

is the most viable thing. we do know that so much of the capital accumulation occurs on the job. confidence, but the more important skills that they learn our social skills are up to get along. the one thing a lot to push you on it is true for the population to show up. the job is the first place that they learn that is a way to function in this world, that you need to be more focused on delivering services. i think it is about all of us.

it was true for me as well. inwe have an event coming up november to the extent you can independentolicies of their personal policies, would you care to comment on how to presume presidential candidates might understand we are talking about? >> i'm going to keep on bearing my head in the sand and hope that this goes away. it won't. this election reminds us white the --mportant like

there are institutes like the manhattan institute used as for reason and intelligence. we need to talk about the problems that matter. i am amazed by how much there are agreements to what you have people believe that evidence makes policy come you get to someplace that is far away from either candidate very quickly. i think the important point right now is to keep on standing up for those reasons and for knowledge and focusing on the problems that matter and for fighting for an american that's , but alsog great being sensible and focused on delivering skills and uplifting everyone. -- encourages

entrepreneurship. i ran across a gem in yesterday out of new york city. i was not aware that the public commerce supports entrepreneurship. can you talk about that? >> i'm going to take the last one first. i spent some time in new jersey this year. there is not a huge amount -- i think there is a variety of this program is sensible.

they are in a world in which air so privileged in guernsey, the weather is fantastic, they have a set of rules, it is hard to think that there going to be a great example, but they do many sensible things. they are very dominated by a few large firms and they are not great on entrepreneurship at all. i remember having this conversation with a reporter on this. why would anybody be an entrepreneur? and he said there are people today,ing from stanford they would say that is rather than being a partner at price, waterhouse and cooper's. was -- it starts

with the social state. person innovation and a to make sure people are brought in. the project is a well-designed program that walks people through steps. it moves them into making things that moves along. grokster is in the process of being worked out. new york has done a number of things to try to encourage entrepreneurship. one of my favorite things they had a great map of permits that you need to go through to start

your restaurant or shop. which is fabulous. you could actually learn what you needed to do. fact that you the needed 17 different permits, but it did show you that you needed those permits. we hope for more going forward. >> i agree with everything you is that what upsets me we are preaching to the choir. to focus you on the unions. you said sometimes unions play a good role. i have a problem with that. unions a restraint of trade.

which is contrary to competition. i happen to live in a co-op. you cannot get into the union 32 youich is a nonskilled job, open the door, you press a button for the elevator. some of them are working two is -- peopleheir who can't even make the minimum wage would love those jobs. if do you justify any union you believe in free competition and the free market? justify any free -- the extent to which you are forming a social group of some form come i think that should be legal in this country. do i think that unions have been a force for increasing employment? no. they have been a force for

raising wages. there are also things that unions can do around socializing people that are not always terrible. of thoseve an example construction workers. there are times when having the social connections are not the worst innings in the world. i am not deeply and friendly to what you're saying. and the training. there is also vocational training the goes on. i think it can be a significant problem here. there was an article in the times this week by neil irwin. that the countries in western europe that have more regulation and we do and a higher minimum wage have left.

is that correct? what do you make of it? .> you can look at it we are looking pretty bad. it is certainly true. sweden and germany are not completely free of regulation, but we think there are regulations and make them more sensible. if i were going to have a two factor model of this it would be about regulations and entrepreneurship, that's bad in europe -- and it is bad here. and on the other is a set of skills. system -- isal that they have done it better job of providing vocational

training. that's the right lesson to take away from this, not that we should be imposing more arbitrary regulations on it. if you think about what the trends are in innovation, robotics as well as artificial intelligence are a clear trend. it is exacerbated by minimum wage, but eventually low labor jobs will be taken over by machines and potentially even services jobs we taking over by jobs. what is the case for that and heavies about that? i don't think any of this is inevitable. run, it likely in manufacturing. it is service employment. there are lots of reason -- with

all this telik commission telecommunication, there's no way that having an electronically delivered stuff will compare with having a good service experience. you have an interaction with someone in a star, -- and a store, a car, who is charming and pleasant it is a delight. notquestion is whether or the people who are out of the labor force can deliver this. if you don't have people with the social skills to function well it is a big problem. again, there is a world technological determinism is wrong. there is not anything set in stone. it does create challenges, but they can be met. they need to be met with a combination of skills and having sensible regulation that don't discourage people from working. in whichgine a world

we have a very heavy service sector, that finds jobs for people who are less skilled, that doesn't fully people. i don't see any reason why that can't happen. follow question. i could go all night. i want to come back to the technology side. you give a specific example to the question earlier about the tech guys. is the direct derivative of what microsoft has done in terms of creating the enterprise software permits such things that you are using and rocks very. >> it has something of the same structure as uber. there is a new book coming out iout -- the thing about ebay didn't think of them as employees.

>> they are not employers per se. are you familiar with the -- consulting group they did a study on collation of five country said he entrepreneurship , specifically sell and smart phones. it was very interesting in terms of answering this question. do you get faster job growth faster creation of small jobs when you look at the penetration of smartphones? very encouraging. >> i have not seen it. it sounds plausible. it should make the point that technology isn't doing anything, it is a question on how it is used. i am not -- this is not a rosy or happy speech.

it is a profoundly upsetting speech. i'm disturbed about our country, i am disturbed about the policy debates around this. wayeed to reform these in a of how to get people to work. despite that, despite all the gloom, i remain fundamentally optimistic about the country and about the city. there is so much entrepreneurial talent. in this so much just room of people who are smart and thoughtful and care about making america and new york a better place. i thank you for all you do for this country and the city. thank you very much for your time here today. applause]

here on c-span washington journal is next. after that, a look at the latest developments in the auto industry and how it is being regulated. and later, the chair of the national transportation safety board talks about the future of software running cars. christopher shimkus from the rand corporation talks about the uk's brexit vote and the impact on defense and security. olson outlines a

new report that found more than 18 million americans got their drinking water from systems with lead violations. host: good morning. it's saturday, july 2, 26 team. today,headlines americans take more trips than ever this independence day weekend in what is expected to be the highest fourth of july travel by record. at the same time, the nations interstate highway system turns 60 years old and it is showing signs of age with federal officials showing that $170 billion in annual funds are needed to get them back into shape. the question for the viewers so they is, would you pay more for better roads?