ms. sanders: i'm not aware of anything on that front. if something comes up, we'll let you know. i hope you'll all join us in the rose garden for the first lady's announcement on her initiative. >> wrapping up today's bress briefing a number of questions and comments about geena haspel, president trump's nominee to run the c.i.a. she's on capitol hill today for meetings ahead of her senate intelligence committee confirmation hearing. we're hearing she's speaking with senate democrats today. a hearing is this coming wednesday and we'll have live coverage starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span3. more live coverage shortly right around 3:00 p.m. eastern, about 15 minutes from now, and you heard spokesperson sarah sanders mention it, the white house rose garden will be the scene when first lady melania trump arrives to talk about her policy priorities. we'll have that for you live starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern

here on c-span. while we wait for that, a discussion from this morning's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. us on aw stettner joins discussion on how the federal government can prepare for the impacts of technology on the future. he's a senior fellow at the century foundation. for those who aren't familiar, xplain what the century foundation is and what your mission is. guest: sure, it's a 100-year-old thinktank and focuses on equality, opportunity and security. and people from the east may emember feline's basement, the founder of that company wanted to give his fortune away and that's how it started. >> you're a senior fellow there. your area of expertise? guest: i focus on the work force and changes to the future of adjust how we need to our protections and programs to respond to that. host: technological unemployment is the term you use in a recent report for the century foundation. find the report that we're talking about today at

tcf.org. explain what you mean by that term technological unemployment? guest: with advances in technology especially computing artificial mation, intelligence, and computing technologies can do tasks that were not previously look able so now, when we at currently available technology, some is estimated 2, half of all americans' jobs could be replaced by technology. conservative 10, mates are that 1 in that's 14 million workers in america could lose their jobs based on robot taking its place. host: mounting a response to technological unemployment is name at the report at the century foundation. give us some potential examples. guest: great example is driverless cars. you know, even decade ago, eople writing about this said driving, that's something we'd never be able to automate.

there's just too much information and too many decisions. but now, let's look at the speed amount of g and the ata available, we're able to map it enough. that's a critical job across the country, may lose their job to technology very fast. host: the 51%, potential impact f jobs that could be lost or impacted, are you talking a matter of years or decades? depends on the scale of the pace of technology. over rtainly, you know, the next five to 10 years, we could see significant dislocation. of your the other part report is how prepared the federal government is to assist jobs might be impacted. is it prepared? guest: i would say basically no. we invest much less in these programs. look at toys r us right now. you know, they're the company upended by amazon and those workers in places like just get 10 may weeks of unemployment benefits. and no retraining.

nd maybe 55 years old and have to find another job. so i don't think we have the response ready. host: why is it government's job to cushion the blow for the jobs that might be lost due to new technology? >> i think it's a great question. know, it's in all of our interests when workers are productive. hard, so, it's really often when a company lays off their workers, they don't really the way to ch in help pay their former employees. government is the best source and there's a lot of winners in technology. so we can kind of redistribute to help hose resources the rest of the economy, you know, share in some of those benefits. host: andrew stettner with us from the century foundation. if you want to join our conversation as we talk about technology, its impacts on the work force of the future, phone this are regionally in segment.

02-748-8000 if you're in eastern or central time zones. 800 is if you're in the mountain zones and in e your report, you focus on trade adjustment assistance. that?s t.a.a.? guest: basically, the one generous program that we have actually go back to college, if you're dislocated from work is if you lost your trade. the government will pay for your college and they'll make sure you can meet your expenses. in order to, you know, be able to complete that program. participants in the trade adjustment assistance program. 2016 from the om department of labor. participants found employment within six months. the average training costs per $12,000.ant is that's how much it costs the government so is this an program? much more generous in the benefits there. if you look at the worker cuts

in t.a.a. especially those who job on they're on, they're doing better. and over a lifetime, they'll have a lot more money in their pocket. host: when we talk about the technology aspect here, taking is that wecontention should expand trade adjustment assistance to make it the adjustment nd trade assistance? guest: i think it's one of the simplest things that capitol to thisld do to respond problem. you take an existing program with a lot of good benefits and eligibility and, you know, specialsly those familiar in the midwest, kind of hard to tell. person operating a machine in a factory losing their job because of trade from or because the technology is moving fast? if you could put the two things all her, we could retrain those workers for good jobs in manufacturing or elsewhere in the economy. a government k program here that costs $12,000 per person to retrain them could expanded to help 51% of the work force potentially in the to come? guest: i think when we look at

the adjustment assistance, we spend about six times less of in the european union on these type of programs. and i think it's actually really investment. the kind of anxiety and challenges we've had around job a lot of really had repercussions across the country. and we need to kind of get in front of this. know, when we think about pell grants or other programs, you know, very similar type of investment. we just want adults who lose their job to get the same thing, the young people that are going to college get. host: andrew stettner joining us to talk about his report a response to technological unemployment. taking your calls, again, phone lines, if you're in the eastern zones, ral time 202-748-8000 and in the pacific and mountain time zones, 8001. mexico.s in new good morning. caller: hello. good morning. wanted to touch off on automation, the effects that it's had. workers with putting out of business or, you know,

also their jobs but funneling more money to the people that own the factories. i think that we'll have to -- i don't think automation is going anywhere. deal k that we have to robots and h the we'll just provide energy to them and they'll provide the echanisms or the products that they make. what are your thoughts on that? case i think the best scenario is we design the robots in a way that maximizes human's inputs. a lot of data that's out there that these, you know, factories to get that be able we can design technology that humans can say, hey, this data is saying this part of the working.is not really actually it means something further down the line is not working so it's really about all of the way that we're it.gning and i think the caller is right. automation really is here to stay. the cost of industrial robots that the caller mentioned has eally calmed down and it's coming down quickly enough that

it's making substitutions of a in a factory,rker for example, and i think it will come to restaurants and other places soon. cost comparison is coming a lot closer. host: to the question about what jobs, what sectors should more prepare for the coming of the robots sooner rather than later? guest: you know, i think the jobs that don't require a lot of human touch and insight and creativity, so i think we're see, you know, obviously people know about what's happening in manufacturing. ut i think it's moving more to the service sector. stores, your restaurants, jobs in those are really going to change. host: eric in milton, new york. you're on with are really going andrew stettner. caller: i'd like to make a couple of comments and ask a question. i read a lot about this. there's a professor by the name rifkin from u penn that writes a lot about the nding of capitalism because of all of this. how, you know, 2/3 of the

economy is based on consumer spending. and if consumers don't have jobs, they're not going to be spend. go out and andrew so it's going to totally reform capitalism as we know it. or change capitalism as we know it. a lot of estion is people have proposed shortening because, you know, technology is what it is. the average worker shouldn't have to work more than a few a week in the future. and they're doing that in europe now. you're seeing the work week in germany, for example, it's like 30 some hours a week. and that way, you know, the jobs there, the work is more divided amongst the workers. and it seems to me the five day week should be on its way out in the new century. comments onget your both those points, if possible. thank you. host: thanks. guest: first thing i would say that like other waves of technology, we shouldn't have less overall unemployment. companies that are making robots are doing well, they're

going -- people are going to spend.oney to but the problem is it's a lot of dislocation. you don't, you know, take one see to ohio, you can although the economy is bigger than it was, you know, three decades ago, a lot of the places as well.ing so it's really a problem of inequality. that's why the retraining is so important. the jobsan retrain for in the future. and the second point, you know, caller made,w, the yo

maybe some type of specific tax would be something we could consider. host: fort edward, new york, call. caller: i work for general electric here in upstate new york. blue collar worker. r plant was moved to juarez,

mexico, because of the nafta trade agreement and 200 left our jobs. now, seven of us signed up for the trade adjustment act and all seven of us graduated college. i got my bachelor's degree. then i got my teaching certification. i ended up doing ok. it was a long haul but ended up k. host: thanks for the call. guest: most of the other retraining programs are $3,000 per worker and that's enough for a short-term occupational training. host: what does that pay for? guest: the t.a.a. is paying for the tuition that this caller used to go for college. whereas the other programs might pay for short-term training like training to be a truck driver or training to may be a welder or medical assistance. host: what about the living expenses you're occurring going back to school?

guest: trade adjustment is unique. you continue to get the same as unemployment benefits as long as you're making satisfactory progress in your training. in t.a.a. you get two years after you were laid off to complete that training course. especially if you have college credits hopefully already you might get a bachelors degree but certainly an associates degrees. host: define satisfactory improvement for advancement in your training? guest: meeting requirements and passing. host: how long can you stay on t.a.a.? guest: two years you can stay on t.a.a. host: what is the level of waste, fraud and abuse in that program? is that something that's been looked into? guest: getting people into training that they can complete and then find a job after they complete the training, that's the biggest challenge of the program. ost: john is in chula vista, california. good morning. caller: i think it's premature

to think driverless trucks would be out there on the road considering how incredibly complicated it is to drive a truck. i almost got run off the road by a trucker who was probably very sleeply. i think the technology can help truck drivers, you know, with helping them to drive but to have a totally driverless truck would be insane and i think there would be a public outcry. host: your thoughts. guest: i think incredible research would show driverless cars and trucks would have less accidents than humans but it would be easier to blame a company or government when a driverless truck goes off the road. we are solving these problems at a pace i don't think was imaginable. we might be comfortable somebody that driver being behind a joystick in an office in california, you know, driving 10 trucks like driving 10 video games.

we might be comfortable with that and in fact be safer than the driving we have new. but hopefully those will be union jobs behind that computer in california. and retraining the truck drivers that lost their jobs. host: do you see this is a good thing? are we moving in the right direction when technology is doing that? guest: if we harness technology for what we want it to do, improve our standard of living and solve problems, yes. but if we just let it be in the way that technology coming down like a force of nature and i think uber is a good example of that. this is something that came into the marketplace. bullied their way in. i think we like having ridesharing services but the people that are doing it a lot of them aren't making a living because we haven't -- we didn't get in front of it to say, how do we do it in a way that's safe? how do we do it that is renew mexico are a tiff to the

working people. host: what should we have done to uber? guest: background checks to people driving so we don't have problem with sexual assault, would have been a great place to start, and what they're considering, some type of minimum wage based on, if someone is going to do this for an hour and have certain expenses for their car, let's make sure they are getting a decent wage from it. host: the report is mounting response to technological unemployment. andrew stettner with the century foundation, about 10 more minutes. give us a call on regional phone lines. san clemente, california, is next. ron, good morning. caller: hey, good morning, john. thanks a lot for taking the phone call. andrew, let me preface a couple of things here. hope you're reading ray

kurswell's article about technology weekly. we don't have any information at all about nanotechnology. we have no information about stem cell research. we have no information, like a news blackout on any of this high-tech new information we are supposed to get. now, we obviously have pretty good information about artificial intelligence because of the automobile industry and their autonomous vehicle program. people don't quite realize that technology has superseded and made a giant jump here beyond almost any of our recommendation what our society will look like in five years. in three years we will have electric vehicles and people think that was impossible. smoking on an aircraft, that was impossible to take away. please talk about the nanotechnology, medical

breakthroughs in stem cell research, how those will tremendously impact our society. guest: yeah, i think you're right we -- -- the caller mentions health care, mentions nano materials. one thing that helped me understand this is concept of morris law. computing speed doubles, you know, within every five years. we think how fast computers are today. they are getting to this next level. it is doing things that are previously unimaginable and bringing in the cost of technology to a place we never thought was going to be before. ost: the caller mentions ray kurswell. engineer for google. google futurist and director of engineering saying basic income will spread worldwide by 2030. picture. [applause]