television companies and more. >> the place you call home. it is our home, too. we are all facing our greatest challenge. that is why sparklight is working to keep you connected. >> sparklight support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. a new local video app from c-span. c-span now. download today. >> here is what is ahead on today's edition of washington journal. after a look at the news and viewer calls, our guests join us for the current state of supply chains and the larger implications of international trade.

a doctor talks about the 50th anniversary of the national cancer act. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. washington journal starts next. host: it is the washington journal for december 4. most analysis of yesterday's job reports showed a mixed bag. 210,000 added in november. some are predicting half a billion. employment showed rises and the unemployment rate dropped as well. you can give us your snapshot by calling us this morning. if you are recently employed and want to tell is your view, (202)-748-8000. perhaps you are looking for work, (202)-748-8001.

if you stopped looking for work and want to tell us why? , (202)-748-8002. for all others on your perspective on the job market (202)-748-8003. you can also use that number to text is your thoughts. you can post on the facebook page at facebook.com/c-span and if you wish, can post on twitter @c-spanwj. papers offer the analysis behind the report. 210,000 jobs created in november. from the washington post, economists had been predicting 500,000 to 600,000 new jobs for november. they hope for a period of more sustained growth. the country has been adding more than 500,000 jobs a month on average, gaining back nearly 5 million jobs.

at 2.4% it was not supposed to be this low until 2024. white house advisers say they expect inflationary pressures to slow down over the next year. the gains made by workers to in wages to last. that is sometimes used to gauge where job growth is. november the labor force grew nearly 600,000 people, the biggest gain in more than a year. the number of americans reporting rose to more than 1.1 million according to the labor department report. those gains might be confusing given the same report the number of jobs added was far below expectations.

the two sets of numbers come from different surveys, one from employers and one from households. over time the two sources usually tell consistent stories about the job market but sometimes differ over shorter periods because of inherent errors. if you go to the wall street journal, it looks at the topic of wages and where they are, especially in light of the report from yesterday. you can add that story as well. you can let us know about your wage experience. this is from gabriel saying, average hourly earnings in november were 4.8% higher from a year ago for all private industries. wages were 13.7 percent higher for leisure and hospitality and almost 9% higher for transportation and warehousing, two of the sectors most effected , as the economy rebounds. those are some of the numbers. you can give us your own sense

of where you view the job market. you can use these lines to call and let us know. if you are recently employed, give us a call at (202)-748-8000 . if you are looking for work, call us at (202)-748-8001. if you stopped looking, (202)-748-8002. if you want to give your perspective on the job market but you don't fit the other categories, give us a call at (202)-748-8003. you can use that same number to text us and facebook and twitter available as well. the president yesterday addressed the jobs numbers and analysis that was done. you can find this whole event on the website c-span.org but here's a portion of president biden yesterday even his reaction. [video clip] >> every year december brings the joys of holiday season and gives us an opportunity to reflect on the year gone by and look ahead and begin to imagine the new year to come.

this year we can reflect on an extraordinary bit of progress. our economy is markedly stronger than it was a year ago and today the incredible news our unemployment rate has fallen to 4.2%. at this point in the year we are looking at the sharpest one year decline in unemployment ever. simply put, america is back to work and our jobs recovery is going very strong. today's historic drop in unemployment rate includes dramatic improvements for workers who have often seen higher wages and higher levels of unemployment -- excuse me, higher levels of unemployment. they are receiving higher wages. but that is not just jobs that are up. wages are up, especially for hard-working americans often ignored in the past. workers in transportation and warehouses have seen their wages go up 10% this year.

workers in hotels and restaurants have seen their wages go up 13% this year. thanks to the american rescue plan we delivered significant tax cuts to families raising children. tax cuts and raising wages for middle-class families mean americans on average have more in their pockets today than they did last year after accounting for inflation. let me repeat that. even after accounting for rising prices the typical american family has more money in their pockets than they did last year. in fact, we are the only leading economy in the world where household income and the economy as a whole are stronger than they were before the pandemic. host: that whole event available at c-span.org. it garnered some reaction from democratic members of congress. senator tim kaine saying since the president took office the

unemployment is down. nearly 6 million jobs created, wages up, and democrats are building back better. a viewer adds to this conversation saying, it is a buyers market. $15 an hour seems perfectly acceptable to me. if you don't get $15 worth of labor, fire them and find someone else. let's keep the momentum and create good paying jobs by quickly passing the build back better act. representative of virginia looks at the analysis, offers attachments is some of that say, look at the report to see who is benefiting from the sharp drop in unemployment. these gains are broadly felt. unemployment for women is down, unemployment for black americans is down, unemployment for hispanic americans is down and unemployment for asian americans is down. we have to acknowledge this is not enough. we have to build back better

ensuring workers and their families can achieve economic security and access opportunities to get ahead. those are the reactions from democratic members of congress. the house minority leader offering his own assessment of yesterday's job number. here is some of what he said yesterday. [video clip] >> just this week the federal reserve chair and biden's own treasury secretary said it was time to retire the word "transitory pickup chairman powell could not confirm whether consumer prices would let up over the next year. i don't know what the press secretary is doing in the white house today but maybe they are coming up with the new term to dismiss inflation concerns. after his policies because gas prices to skyrocket he said he would lower the gas price. he has not done it. he has made it worse. not the measly to sense -- two

cents they think is a reduction. he depleted 50 million barrels from the emergency supply and has done nothing to reverse this agenda. in my home state of california you see the price rise almost every day. more than five dollars a gallon. that hurts the hard-working americans every single day. it is not just the gas price. they fill up the car and go to the grocery store, it costs the more. they turn on the heat, it costs the more. everything they do and now we have come to christmas. we worry about the ability to even get the gifts you want or you can afford them. but what is the answer we get from the white house? can't even promise you the christmas gift will arrive on time. the american people are tired of this one-party rule and what has come of it in one year. when americans take the majority next year we make this

commitment to every single american -- we will listen to you. we will hear you, we will work on your policies, and we will improve your quality of life. host: the reaction from washington. that being said it is time for your reaction. if you are recently employed, (202)-748-8000. if you are looking for work, (202)-748-8001. if you stopped looking, (202)-748-8002. all others at (202)-748-8003. ben in west palm beach, florida on the line for others. what is your assessment of the job market? caller: good morning. i think with everything costing almost twice -- not everything -- but gas prices, lumber prices, food prices exponentially increasing i think there should be some natural increases to wages. that being said, i don't know where it stops.

i don't know how it can continue increasing like how it has been. jobs that were paying $10 an hour pre-covid are offering $20 an hour -- that's an exaggeration -- but all kinds of sign-on bonuses. i am not saying people who work hard should not be able to live comfortably but i don't see an end to these increases. host: you talked about that natural increase. i was wondering if you thought what you are seeing is natural and what is the sweet spot? $15 an hour is where you start but as far as a number where'd you go? caller: just to use an example, pre-covid i was a manager in the hospitality industry. i was making $15 an hour salaried as the manager. the crew was making $10 an hour hourly. post-covid i feel like a lot of the managerial positions -- at

least in that industry -- stayed but the hourly rates have increased. i'm sorry. i don't have an answer of where the sweet spot would be but i think the natural increases better than the legislation from washington. host: was your work consistent during the last couple of years or did you find yourself out of work at time? what was that picture for you? caller: so, when the pandemic first started i was laid off for about two months, went back to work in the hospitality industry, but then i got -- i found a better job. host: ok. ben in west palm beach, florida. yahoo! news offering assessment yesterday. they say they are still over one million people out of work and the leisure and hospitality business. the labor secretary told yahoo! finance he was surprised by the total number of the jobs reports

showing only 23,000 payroll gains in that sector on a seasonal basis. adding that is not where we wanted to be. employment in leisure and hospitality crater during the depths of the pandemics at bars, restaurants, museums and casinos closed. total payroll in the sector nearly halved, losing 8.2 million jobs. in missouri this is carol. good morning. caller: good morning. i watched all your c-span programs and biden talks about all these jobs he created over the past year makes my stomach turn. most of these jobs he created

was jobs that was there before the pandemic. i keep hearing him say he is going to create jobs with this new bill. when he does then he can brag about it but these other jobs going right now, jobs that opened thanks to the rich states who pushed them to open up, finally opening up and working. if he wants to brag about the jobs, find, but don't say he created them. these were people who had businesses working before the pandemic hit. i am sick of when he says that because i know it is not true. host: what is your assessment of the jobs situation in missouri? caller: we have some jobs here. multiple people here have gone back to work that had lost it through the pandemic. there is a couple of places that closed it down that have not reopened so we have extra people looking for work

and we got some -- i talked to a lady the other day when i was in town and she said she is not going back to work. she is in her 30's and said with my husband working and me getting extra money, she is still getting money from the state to help her while they were on the pandemic leave. i don't understand all these people. host: that was carol in missouri. let's hear from someone looking for work. steven in staten island, new york. caller: morning. actually it is my husband. we are struggling because he lost his job early in the pandemic. everybody went remote and he was not able to -- his job is not able to be done remotely. he is now working. but he is still underemployed because he cannot find anything to match what he was doing. now he is working part-time and he had a few job offers in

between but they were all for very low wages. nothing that would enable us to meet the demands we have now with our mortgage and everything. host: what kind of work, if i may ask, did your husband do? caller: he was an operations professional and finance. host: i imagine, as far as the market for that kind of job, it is not a large market or because you said some of the offers he got maybe were not matching the salary that he got before? caller: he started looking in other areas outside of finance because operations is kind of confusing. it is a very big field and every company has an operations. he started looking outside of finance and those were the jobs he was getting offered but it was for one dollar over minimum wage. host: if i may ask, what type of work does he do now? caller: right now proctoring exams. it is kind of anybody with

minimal training could do it. host: gotcha. that was stephen island in staten island, new york. brian in phoenix, arizona on the line for others. hello. caller: hello. i appreciate you taking my call. where would you like me to begin? host: how would you assess the job market currently? caller: i know the pandemic has caused a lot of bad situations for small business. basically our middle income class people. i definitely see a lot of things opening up. the stores, the walmarts, a lead of things to get people back in it. when i moved to phoenix in 2009, right when the obama administration got in, back east with the auto industry and

whatnot it was really shut down. i moved to phoenix in 2009, got into a program, was homeless, but they had a good homeless academic college campus style. within a matter of time i got housing vouchers and before the pandemic i was paying third income and doing quite well. no food stamps, i was doing everything on my own. then the pandemic hit. they worked with me on that and then i had another management come in and the apartments, when they bought it, they decided they were going to throw everybody out, innovate it, and resell it or whatever. my point of this conversation -- i appreciate you hearing me out -- my concern -- and i'm not just speaking for myself -- would be the homeless category

that really needs the housing on a very basic level to meet these jobs that are opening up. i am not just speaking -- like the fellow from missouri. he was insinuating it is all low income. that may be true but i am seeing it go the other way. my point being is no matter what side of the tracks you are on i do think the work is opening up. my concern from my experience -- and i would have to say i am speaking for others -- if you are going to take a free ride, that is on you. you can't expect society to keep carrying you but if it is really out there, you cannot get to it with the basics. host: that was brian in phoenix, arizona. this is from anthony in minneapolis. hello. caller: hi. i am just really upset with the way people are looking at this. the job market, has anybody

taken the consideration -- yesterday a young man called and said what about the people who died? we have over a million and a half people who have died? how many are sitting in the hospital? i want to bring up wages. wages stopped growing in the 1960's and 1970's when employers stopped. inflation has been going up since the 1960's. let me go back to the $15 an hour. that is $31,200 a month -- i mean, a year. you take into consideration rent , $1000 a month. utilities, $6,000 a year. food, $6,000 a year. transportation if you are taking the bus or car, we have already reached $31,000.

we have not talked about buying clothes or anything like that. americans need to stop listening to these people that all they want to do is stay in power. vote your pocket. host: as far as that is concerned what will it change if you voted your pocket and what do you think it would do? where do you think the wages should be considering what you said so far? caller: it should be contending with what the prophets are making from the corporations -- profits are making from the corporations. poor people that pay taxes don't get anything. we argue republicans won't give us $1400 a month but they will give rich people $120,000 tax break indefinite. americans, think about it. we need two more parties. host: we will leave it there. eric on the other line, las vegas. good morning. caller: good morning.

i love c-span. i love the job market right now. in 2009, chrysler dropped my entire division. we lost everything. going to charities just to get something to eat. my wife and i lost everything. the government put me through a school to drive trucks in 2012 and i am making six figures driving a truck. i am driving a load right now. now, because of all the shortages, we were 200,000 drivers short before the pandemic. i have had three races this year. i love making six figures, love being on the road. there are jobs to be had and definitely no truck drivers waiting for a government check because it is nowhere close to six figures. host: how much training was

involved in becoming a driver? caller: i was very fortunate and i did not know i was the exception. i was in the full semester program but a person can go through truck driving school in 30 days. host: that's getting a cdl and be able to haul various types of loads? caller: correct. host: what is the typical haul you do and is it a steady thing week to week? caller: i am a company driver. i am not an owner operator. i have steady work. i am taking this load into riverside, california, picking up a load that goes back to pennsylvania. it is what it is. everyone has different challenges. i have been on both sides of the challenge. i live in las vegas.

been standing outside waiting for groceries at 118 degrees is challenging but it is good for me now. host: randy is in minnesota, recently employed. caller: hi. my name is randi and i am southwest of the twin cities. i am a dental hygienist. this coming june i will have been in dentistry 50 years. i lost my job four years ago. i got to be employed again and then covid hit. luckily i had already signed over social security and even though i went through the unemployment program it was really through a coworker i was connected. i went to fill in for maternity leave and i am grateful to still be there and greatly appreciated for my skills. i wanted to call and encourage especially the older people. go through the network of friends you have, pass the word.

there are jobs out there. i am no longer doing a 2 hour drive. i am doing a two minute drive -- 23 minute drive. life is good and you know what else i noticed? us that are older and working part-time like i am doing two days a week, guess what? i am not putting on weight, i am exercising twice a day, my holiday season wish is everyone that is older, get your foot in the door and keep going. host: do you think for being the older workers in our audience, how do you think employers treat them compared to younger workers? do you think there is hesitancy to get work because of age? caller: most definitely. anyone that says age is not a factor they are blind and deaf. but once you get your foot in the door can i outwork the younger ones? yes. i'm kind of appalled of the younger hygienists.

they don't have the skills. they were not brought up with the line of older people that made me the professional i am today. hopefully i can start giving back although i try to keep my mouth shut because i don't want to make any enemies in the office. hopefully they will real is my skills and that patients are requesting me. the person that left no one seems to be concerned about. hopefully they will be smart enough being younger people to do what i did, learn from those that are older and more skilled. as a professional anyone who is a good worker in any field they are willing to share. that makes us happy at the end of the day. host: that was randi giving her employment history as a dental hygienist. you can add yours to the mix, particularly as you talk about your view of the todd market -- job market. we talked about the numbers yesterday. you can reference those. if you would like to give your

own perspective like some have this morning, if you are recently employed, (202)-748-8000. you might be looking for work, (202)-748-8001. if you stopped looking, (202)-748-8002. the line for others (202)-748-8003. let's hear from someone looking for work in trenton, new jersey. this is mark. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm well, thank you. how about yourself? caller: good. i am almost in the same boat that woman that was just on. i'm 62 years old and worked at the same business 40 years. they say all these great jobs are out there that are only part-time. 70% are part-time. they are all minimum-wage, $12 an hour. you cannot live on $12 an hour

which that man called previously about the rent being $1000, he could never cover your bills. i am thinking about taking the early retirement at 62 and getting some kind of part-time job which the wage will go to $13 an hour starting in january in new jersey. that is what i have to look forward to because i am 62 and it is going to be really hard for me to find a job out there that would be full-time and a business looking at me at my age saying, this man is only going to be here five years. he is going to retire so why are we going to hire him? host: if i may ask, what kind of work are you looking for? what is your background? caller: i was in shipping and receiving at a small company and then i was in retail part-time

back some years ago. that's where i'm at. host: that was mark in new jersey calling us about his experience looking for a job. some reactions from other members of congress from the jobs report. senator tim scott, republican, another disappointing jobs report for the biden administration. shows the united states added the smallest number of jobs since december 2020. steve tweets, the most recent reports as unemployment went from 4.6% to 4.2% while labor participation group. that is a rosy picture. personally my job has been secure throughout the pandemic because our union. randy from arizona, holiday should be surging but thanks to president biden the jobs report is another failure. jim jordan of ohio saying, gas prices continue to soar and

another disappointing jobs report. the biden administration is not building back anything better. another portion from president biden talking about the jobs report picture and talked about his administration's record on creating jobs. [video clip] >> today's news means unemployment has fallen more than two percentage points since i took office. that is the fastest decline in a single year on record. that is three times faster than any other president in their first year in office. the number of people claiming unemployment has fallen from 18 million when i took office to 2 million this week, another record drop. we learned in november 235,000 jobs were created in the private sector. when they went back and recalibrated they found the last two months job growth actually

created 82,000 more jobs than the previous report. which means that we have averaged nearly 400,000 new jobs a month over the last three months, a solid pace. all told in the first 10 months of my administration the economy created 6 million jobs, a record for a new president. this is significant improvement from when i took office in january. a sign we are on the right track. host: that full event at c-span.org. let's hear from jason on the line for others, ohio. caller: how's it going this morning? host: it goes well. caller: we here in ohio, we are sheltered from the rest of the nation to a degree. i have no problem finding work. i am a carpenter. i do high-end remodels and the business is booming

because we have people at home with the pandemic and they want to fix up their home. after sitting there a couple of years they start seeing things. that businesses find. what i want to say about what biden has done is that it is easy to say that numbers look good. you can interpret numbers anyway you want. the fact of it is he has killed so many jobs. this economy could be doing so much better. the oil and gas market has taken a hit. this area used to be full of oil and gas jobs with the pipelines and everything else. that's all shut down now. i have no clue why. all it is is causing problems for everyone else. inflation is going so high wages could never keep up with it. he has a mess on his hands. that is my view of it. host: let me ask you this

because you mentioned you are a carpenter. would you advise someone to consider one of the trades versus going to college for an education? because of your background is a carpenter. caller: it depends. let's say you are a 4.0, full ride to college. go to college. if you are one of those students struggling to go to school or something of that nature, absolutely. get into one of the trades. the wages are actually kind of going up in the trades. that is one of the few areas in the whole economy the wages or even gumming up. host: as far as the training for a trade, i know you may not be able to talk generally, but typically do employers pay people to learn the trade while they are learning? caller: yeah but you are not going to get -- if you know something going in, you are going to get better pay. but they will train you because

you're going to give them something, too. you will start out here $12 an hour something like that but they will pay you to learn. if you are not picking it up they have the option to fire you. host: that was jason in ohio talking about his work as a carpenter, talking about the job market. his view not only from the report yesterday but his own personal perspective as well. women, as part of the analysis from yesterday's numbers, saying the bureau of labor statistics latest report showed november mark to slow down and hiring as experts fear the new variant that could disrupt economic recovery. november was a sluggish month for women reentering the workforce as women gained only 36% of new jobs, according to the national women's law center.

a sharp decline from october were more than half of new positions went to women. the director of research for the organization is quoted saying "there clear cause for concern in this report." these modest gains could be reversed in just a few weeks. 274,000 enter the workforce in november bumping the participation rate to 57.3%. but while 124,000 white women and 127,000 latina women joined the workforce, 91,000 black women left. john in new york looking for a job. you are on. caller: i am looking for a job but also i am worried about covid. my brother called and he had his sore throat. a friend of mine passed away

recently. but more than vaccines for covid i think we need a vaccine for what is going on with our political structure. the vaccine we need for our political structure right now, the quickest we can get this vaccine is the next election cycle. host: you are looking for a job. are you not looking? how selective are you because of covid concerns? tell us about your experience looking for a job. caller: i am looking for a job because i got the energy bills, they rose. before i was ok with social security and the increase in inflation is really hard. it is up to 6% now.

the gas prices are going up and my social security i was able to live on in the past but right now -- i am on a tight budget. i am walking on thin ice. i was able to manage and now it is like, if this thing increases, i don't know what i am going to do. we are walking unknown territory with these solar panels and solar farms. host: what type of work are you looking for? caller: i am looking for anything. maybe a $15 an hour job. host: that was john in new york. some of your experiences being related or your perspectives be related on twitter. this is mark saying, looking at canada, we added 154,000. they have been mirroring the

u.s. for months. bc venice saying, this is one aspect of an economy so reagan twisted nobody can keep up. everything rises to the top by design. off the twitter feed, so many jobs, so little pay. another viewer saying, i am always working as an artist. never sold much artwork and books as i have this year. i am working and others are too. if you build it, people will come and they will find it useful. twitter is available if you want to look -- post @c-spanwj. text us at (202)-748-8003. doug in wilmington, north carolina on the line for others. caller: good morning, pedro. i know today's going to be a great day starting off talking to you. i quit my job four years ago to pursue my art career so it is

ironic you showed that text from the other person. things are going good. slowly getting going. my wife was fully backing me. after coronavirus the shows a down. i was getting unemployment but after that my wife and i split up. i am living on my own, she is paying my rent but only until the end of next year. i am starting to do these shows again and we have taken off. i am not saying this to brag but one day i am making $1000. i don't want to go look for a job, let's say, hobby lobby, where they are going to pay me little bit more than minimum wage. they are not paying people time. i have friends of mine working over at dollar tree. she was excited because she was working thanksgiving and she is getting time and a half but did

not realize they did not give her more hours after that. this art thing is taking off and i hope it takes off. host: what type of art do you create? caller: i do photography of urban decay. can i give my business a shout out? host: let me move on to larry and columbus, ohio. larry, hello. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i am looking for work and i am 66. the people complaining about other people looking for work, if the party would pass the bill back, better act it would help me a lot because i would be able to get social security and make ends meet.

you are able to work and still draw social security. they complain about not being able to find work but they will not pass nothing to help the small man get up. host: what type of work are you currently looking for? caller: i was in construction but i am able, like i said, to be doing something different. but the fact they will not pass anything that allows persons to go back to work, to make ends meet. but they want to complain about the unemployment. but they don't want to help nobody. how can you help somebody when they don't pass anything?

that would allow me to get my health back in shape because i did not make nothing. people do a lot of complaining. host: are there health issues keeping you from going back to construction or is there not enough construction in columbus making that happen? caller: there is a lot of construction and work to be done but once you get into a health bottle you have to have the money to pay the doctors in order to get you back in shape even go to work. if it had not been for medicaid and the health aid they passed on obamacare, i would never have been able to get the help i need to get back in shape to get back to work. host: that was larry, columbus,

ohio. talking about the federal government aspects of the build back better and other issues. you can roll those into the conversation if you wish. tima in hackensack, new jersey. caller: i am a retired schoolteacher and have been retired five or six years. i have been doing online instruction and i find that is a seamless process because with covid everything went remote. we were already remote so it really did not cause any type of disruption in my employment. i am blessed to be able to do that. host: what is it like teaching online versus in class? caller: in the classroom you have to go to a brick and mortar building and you are encountering students from a physical point of view. but the online instruction you are virtual.

i have students all over the country and it is no problem because everybody gets on, they do the lessons given to them, and we do encounter them virtually. zoom conference calls and things like that. it has been great. i have not had any disruption during this covid crisis. host: when you are instructing people is it one-on-one, is it a group setting, how does that work? caller: it can be group. most of the time it is one-on-one where you're talking with your student, trying to help them navigate their classes and what they have to do in class. host: fatima talking about her time as an online instructor. snapshot we are getting from the job market from you.

the government offering their own snapshot. the jobs picture yesterday, you can find that online at various sources. we are asking you to pay your perspective of the job market in light of yesterday's report. david in dallas, texas currently working for work. hello. caller: hello. i was recently incarcerated and prior to that i worked for 20 plus years customer service and sales. very good at what i did, made six figures, but the only thing i can get is fast food, hospitality, $12 is, $15 an hour and that is not enough to maintain my lifestyle. a lot of people would say, get what you can until you can do better but i am 57 years old and i can't stand on my feet eight hours a day.

the vast majority of my life has been sitting down and it is a problem, it is a major problem. people love my background the love what i did and when they see i was incarcerated, i'm sorry, there's nothing we can do. i have been catching hell the past six months looking for a job. my life is considered -- my life is maintained by donating plasma, doing side jobs, and it is real hard to find something that is a job with longevity. host: if i may ask, what would be your message to employers for someone in your situation with the work background and yet, a felon as well? what would be the message you sent to employers? caller: i did something stupid. for the record, i went in my ex-girlfriend's house with the key and was arrested for

burglary ended eight months of penitentiary because i failed probation. i tell them of that i did something stupid. i paid my debt to society and nine times out of 10, as bad as people say they want someone to work, something like that they won't hire you. when they say there are a lot of jobs out there there are a lot of jobs for kids that don't want to work. they want to sit around and collect unemployment and food stamps. that is not my style. i will get food stamps but believe me when i tell you, i have been raking and scraping trying to keep my head above water. soon as they see that felon, i'm sorry, there's nothing we can do. no fortune 500 company will hire me. it is really hard. it's frustrating. when people say there are jobs out there, there are jobs for teenagers that don't want to work, for the younger generation

who don't give it their all. i am frustrated. i am very frustrated. every time i hear about all these jobs and they can't fill them, it has been contrary to me. host: david in dallas, texas. thank you for sharing your story with our audience. that is his story. you can share yours as well on the various lines. neil erwin does analysis on economic issues for the new york times takes a look at yesterday under the headline, once you get past the big number the november jobs report is not bad. sometimes the falling unemployment rate is driven by pernicious trends. people drop out of the labor force. the opposite was true in november. the survey of american households on which data showed uniformly positive signs. the number of people working was up 1.1 million while the number of adults not in the labor force, neither working or looking, fell 37,000. among people in their prime 24

to 55 rose half a percentage point. it was 78.8% in november approaching pre-covid levels of 80.4%. by early 2022 it is easy to imagine people in that age bracket will be employed at pre-pandemic rates. if you want to go to the website, you can find neil erwin 's analysis there. humboldt, texas, thomas says he stopped looking for work. caller: merry christmas, america. listen america, one of the biggest reasons it is hard to work on social security is because you are only allowed to make so much. i think you can only keep $2000 in the bank before you penalize after that or you can only make $17,000 a year. you should be able to make $40,000 before anything is

penalized, taken out of your social security check. another thing, if you know anything about green energy, get your solar job. on-the-job application it should be, can you do this and are you an american citizen? end of story. host: let me jump back a little bit. you said you stopped working. you stopped working because of social security or were there other factors? caller: i received it. i could get a job tomorrow. somebody is trying to hire me now. i used to work in health care. host: why did you stop looking? caller: well, because i have money. [laughs] if you have money, you know, i have some property and money. i feel for the people who really have to get out and work because it is no joke. but there is a lot of jobs -- after five years you should

require, hey, did you go to jail? there is a lot of people with those records. host: thomas in humboldt, texas. another texan, dylan is recently employed. caller: how are you doing? host: well thanks. how about yourself? caller: pretty good. for me through this whole pandemic i never had a problem being employed. i know a lot of people did lose their jobs due to the pandemic. but a lot of people i know that weren't working during the pandemic, i saw a lot of people quitting their jobs just to get the unemployment and i know a lot of people who did lose their jobs. i am taking that out of the factor. when i see with my generation -- i am 32 years old and in construction. i am trying to get 12 people

jobs that i know. through the recovery community i have tried to get people jobs in my generation, they don't want to work. they don't want to do hard work. they want to do the bare minimum and try to get top dollar. with the younger generation it is more, in my opinion, there is a lot of entitlement and laziness. that is my opinion and there is a lot of people there are reasons they cannot get jobs. there is a lot of jobs out there that will not pay the cost-of-living. i had to move because i could not afford to live in austin. host: what drew you to construction? caller: when i was 18 it was a

job. i started tearing off shingles for nine dollars an hour. i am at $30 an hour now. it took 12 years but, you know, you just got to stick it out and climb up the ladder. when i try to get guys jobs they don't want to start loading dumpsters and doing the grunt work. they want to start learning right away and there is a system to it. you always start at the bottom and work your way up. host: that was dylan another texan calling with his job picture, particularly in the world of construction. michael from twitter saying, the job market is smoking hot. those looking have plenty of choices. even those working now have as much leverage as i have ever seen. rebecca stoner of twitter saying, a wendy's near me has assigned about the benefits and

sign-on bonus as well as the pay they are offering. that is from where you live and you can give us your perspective on the job market as you call or tweet us or text us or whatever means you use. elaina in washington, d.c. looking for work. caller: yes i am. i worked for the -- the one tier supervisor wanted to give me a raise but the second tier did not and he did everything he could because i am black and native american to dissuade me from getting hired even further. i had a job interview on the

same job. the woman asked me, and i had been there for 10 years, what does the agency for international development do? which was a white woman and i told you my nationality. so, i negated to speak and walked out of her office. that is the treatment you get for being black and a woman of color. host: if i may ask, as far as looking for work what kind of work are you looking for and what is the opportunity currently? caller: i am a paralegal and i can do any job that i can be qualified for. but the qualifications and the standards they require in the descriptions of the jobs don't match. host: what do you mean by that? caller: oh, it will tell you all you need is a high school

education but in fact you need a college education to be required for any job in the district of columbia. the mayor is hollering pride. everybody is not gay. host: hold on, as a paralegal do you have some education specifically to that as opposed to high school? caller: i went to usda grad school to earn what i have to do but my company, which is the federal government, would not pay for me and i had to pay out-of-pocket because i was dissuaded because i am a woman of color. if you understand what i mean. host: that was a lena -- caller: and then i had the union try to fight for me. host: i have to leave it there. thank you for the story.

she related her job experiences leading up to that. richard in broken arrow, oklahoma on the line for others. richard, hello. richard in broken arrow, oklahoma. we will try him one more time. ok. that is a little bit of the perspective from those of you watching the program taking a look at the issue of the job market. for the next couple of minutes if you want to give us a call and give us your perspective, (202)-748-8000 for those of you recently employed. (202)-748-8001 if you are looking for work. if you have stopped looking, a couple of you calling on that front, (202)-748-8002. the line for others (202)-748-8003. we will try steve in charleston, south carolina on the line for others. hello. caller: hey, pedro.

how you doing? i am a logistics analyst and i have been in logistics since the early 1980's. 74 years old and still working. i love going to work every day, love the camaraderie. i want to talk about fuel prices for a minute. we have tunnel vision about fuel prices. it is more than how it affects us to get from point a to point b. it affects production in some factories and plants and people say, well, not all factories use fuel. yeah but they have to pay for inbound freight to reduce parts. we have had this happen before. i wish -- i wonder if his company started adding fuel surcharges because they will do that. the have to pass the cost on to somebody else to keep prices reasonable. it is just the way it is. as far as the supply chain goes in charleston we have been open

24/7 forever. i don't understand the west coast deal. they don't have holidays. what did they do? these guys love to work holidays because they get like triple time. by the way, it is going to go up 6% the cost-of-living but does not include fuel and food. somebody please explain that? i don't get it. host: that is stephen charleston, south carolina giving us the last call on this topic. to all who participated thanks for doing so. steve mentioned the supply chain. two experts joining us to talk about supply chain and related topics for our discussion. the competitive enterprise institute's ryan young and economic policy institute's robert scott joining us next for that. later on we hear from dr. diane reidy-langunes, host of "cancer straight talk" podcasted talks

about the 50th anniversary of the national cancer act and development and research when it comes to cancer. those conversations coming up on washington journal. >> without the advances we have made in efficiency in renewables for example, i think certainly our circumstances would be much more serious than we are today. at the same time, we have been entirely focused on that kind of approach to climate change for the last 20 years and we have let us -- yet to see a single year in which there has been an absolute reduction in global carbon emissions, which being in a recession or pandemic, or without a circumstance in which the world slows down it shopping. >> sunday on q&a what would happen to the economy and the environment if the world cut consumption by 25%.

j.b. mckinnon discusses that as -- in his book "when the world stop shopping." you can listen to all of our podcasts on our new sisi c-span now app. ♪ >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every inch -- listener. weekdays, washington tillett -- today gives you the latest from the nation's capital and they have in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works while the weekly uses audio from our immense i, -- archive to look at how issues of the day developed and are occasional series talking with is -- features extensive conversations. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: on the topics of economics and the job picture and supply chains being part of this conversation. two debt -- two guest joining us to talk about that. ryan young is with the competitive enterprise institute and robert scott from the economic policy institute. both of you, thank you for giving us your time. guest: thank you. guest: and thank you for having us. host: before we talk about the supply chain picture, we saw the numbers come out from the job picture yesterday. a lot of analysis being done as far as the snapshot is concerned, what do you make the picture? guest: i feel that it reflects changing job growth. two different surveys in a household and they had slightly different numbers. we had 200,000 jobs, continuing a very strong year, but with the

biden administration household size is 4.2% and all of the indicators of a strong recovery. but will it -- relative weakness on the establishment side says it is continuing from the covid pandemic which is picking up another wave of infections as we head into the holiday. host: same question, your assessment of yesterday. >> things are mixed, they are on the up and up, but we are seeing is the indicators are closely tracking how the virus is going. when new variants are spreading, people feel the need to hunker down. when they do feel safe they go up and the jobs go up and gdp growth comes back.

really, that is the main variable we need to look at, paul boop -- public policy and things at the federal and state governments are trying when -- are secondary to the virus. we are true million jobs short of where we were pre-covid, but like what mr. scott said, we are on our way back. i am cautiously optimistic. let me follow-up -- host: let me follow-up with that, one of the pictures was the labor participation rate. talk about the bump. you think that omicron could affect that as well? >> it is too early to tell. we are hoping that the vaccine hold strong against it and more people get vaccinated and boosted and asked her kit -- the faster the fda can approve treatments the less omicron will matter in the first place. absent that if it ends up being surveyor, we could be in for a wave of more unemployment and inflation will not help with that at all. host: same question to you.

guest: i think the effects of the omicron variant are going to depend of course on the degree to which the consumers are willing to take the vaccines. we know that the vaccination rates are much higher. for example, in the new england states, and -- than they are in other parts of the country. they are also high on the west coast. those regions are reasonably well protected against the new variants. i think the upper midwest, and the south atlantic and the mountain states where vaccination rates are lower are going to be much more vulnerable to this latest variant, so i think those are particular regional concerns. host: thank you for that. we did invite you onto talk about the supply chain which we have -- which we have been hearing about. i will ask you both to personally give your assessment on what the current health of

the supply chain is, and what do you think of the factors involving that. mr. scott, you go first. guest: i think the kings are being straight now. the biden administration has people in place to try and keep the ports open 24 hours a day, and maximize the flow of trucks and rail trains on the west coast where the problem occurred. i think we have to look at the deeper problem being this massive surge in imports which we have experienced this year and this is a result of a change in the economy during the covid recession. we saw massive growth in firms like amazon and walmart, and target where it can direct market consumers through the mail and in person sales have been decreasing.

and, of course, amazon and walmart and the others are importing most of their products direct from china and elsewhere in asia, and that is why imports are piling up. over one third -- the deficit over all is over one third relative to last year. that translates into an extra one half -- $1 trillion worth of goods coming into the economy. it is an import store -- import story and we do not hear much discussion about those issues. host: we will ask about that. mr. young, your assessment of the health of the supply chains and the concerns you have about it. >> i think we are past the worst of it but it has a long way to go. the system had pre-existing problems and when covid hit we saw what happened. the trouble is is that there is no single magic bullet policy. it is more of a death by 1000

cuts that will require action from federal, state, and local governments. tariffs have jammed up the supply chain by forcing redirections of supply chains. we have court regulations for ports worldwide, which are usually open 24/7, but not in california, they are open 16 hours a day. the rotterdam port can process twice as much cargo as the l.a. port, and that is something that can be easily fixed with more hours and automation. that is being resisted by labor unions. there are other factors and even local zoning regulations. in long beach, california, until recently or until bloomberg got attention to this, they were forbidden to stack containers more than two, which meant that they could have very little capacity relative to what they could actually handle. for that reason that is why we have dozens of ships hanging out offshore, which is

unprecedented. there is still a long way to go in there is not one easy fix. host: both of our guests with us until 8:45. if you want to ask them questions about supply chains and related issues. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. mr. young, i will take it back to a topic that mr. scott brought up, the volume of imports, what do you think about that as being a factor as far as what is going on with the chains. >> economists have known that trade deficits do not matter. people do not engage in trade unless they think they are making a good deal. sometimes that means you are on a trade surplus or deficit but there is no correlation with economic health, it is irrelevant. host: you said as far as the drivers of those imports, what would those be? >> there are a lot of variables

in play, the domestic industry cannot keep pace so people demand imports and the u.s. tends to be very good at high skilled and high tech jobs whereas lower labor cost countries tend to be better at producing labor-intensive goods at a low price. ultimately, nobody decides the process from on top it is the consumers and all of our viewers making those decisions we decide what to buy at the store or what to have for lunch and that is how that happens. host: i should have said mr. scott said it was the drivers, what i would -- but i will let you answer that as well. guest: there are two big drivers, one is the fact that we have had decades of unfair trade by exporting countries who have been manipulating their currencies artificially. the way they do this is a buy up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of u.s. treasury bills under security which drives up the value of the u.s. dollar

relative to their currencies. and this gives them an unfair competitive advantage. it acts like a subsidy of 25 to 30% on the exports of all of the goods coming from china and about 20 other countries that are involved. so, this is not the magic hand of the market, this is a manipulative hand of foreign currency practices. this has been aided and abetted by wall street because they can get these imports for cheap and has created the phenomenon of amazon. amazon is built and based on cheap imports from china. so, these subsidized imports have wiped out 5 million manufacturing jobs over the last 20 years, and about 70,000 factories that we do not have, so we cannot make this stuff in the united states because of these distortions. in addition and on top of the

currency factors, we also have massive amounts of unfair trade, illegal subsidies and dumping of products in the united states but, again are eroding our ability to be this, not just to achieve imports, but it is difficult for u.s. firms to export products to the rest of the world, and that would allow us to increase the supply available in the united states as well. this is really a product of malign neglect of domestic production capacity by two generations of economists running the treasury and a reflection of the influence from all straight. -- wall street. host: you talk about china going back to the last administration. we saw tariffs placed for various reasons. as far as trade policy either from the previous administration

or this one, are those contributing factors on what we are seeing today? >> with the tariffs being more than doubled since before trump took office the trade deficit went up, then if that is your metric the policy failed. guest: i would agree, the tariffs were not effective. the imports from china went down and imports from the rest of the world went up, china has seen its overall exports to the world and that is a big driver, increased dramatically despite the tariffs, so china has just reshuffled the deck and move their supply chains to malaysia and indonesia and taiwan, and hong kong. we are getting more imports but they are just coming from other ports. host: both of our guests with us and we are taking calls. eva is from georgia on the independent line. no ahead. caller: thank you so very much. it is wonderful -- thank you for

c-span and the wonderful opportunities it gives the country. i want to think about the established disparity is that the economic policy guests just spoke upon, because i think this is the core of our issue, where we have intensive evidence based and high quality history of the loss of our manufacturing base, and that is a contributing factor to why we have, now, a supply chain that no longer supplies a workforce, a retirement security, a health care security for the country as he stated. we have a manipulative and illegal subsidy that has then brought up on country, and the

industries of the society by this bought and paid lobby. these cheap imports, i was yesterday reading about the family dollar, dollar general or whatever, they are all the same. this nebula to expansion into rural and less than half a million metro areas, and now they are getting ready to go into an expansive area. i grew up in the context of this family, i am a navy -- a navy brat, seven men who are part of my father's family were in the navy from the korean war, right? so i grew up with the story that my dad went on to become a pharmacist, and left a lot of diaries and how much they made on it was in the 40's and 50's to the 60's. he left for us the context of

seeing the wage, and in north carolina particularly, connecticut, and germany -- in new jersey where we made the levi jeans and the mary jane shoes that shows where we were making meals in north carolina. the gentleman gave us 70,000 factories. imagine that we have -- host: thank you so much. a lot there. let us start with the loss of manufacturing base concept and you can add onto that as you wish. mr. young, you can go first. >> manufacturing output as and how much stuff are american factories are cranking out, a lot of people are surprised that it is actually near an all-time high. covid threw a wrench in that and is recovering. manufacturing jobs have hit an all-time high in 1979, 18 million americans working manufacturing jobs. and yet we are cranking out near

record amounts of stuff. the reason is because workers are better at making more stuff, they are more productive and i have better equipment. what that does is at has freed up 6 million workers to be put towards other things. it is not that we have more manufacturing goods, we had more of those plus, more services, more of the rest of the economy. it is not or, it is and. host: mr. scott. guest: this, as the caller pointed out, we have lost tremendous amounts of factories to make those things over the last two or three decades. and, as a result we have seen as a pulling apart of society. manufacturing creates good jobs with excellent wages, especially for non-college-educated workers.

those were some of the best jobs in society for people without a college degree. and they pay about 30% more plus wages and benefits, benefits were particularly strong in manufacturing. the other source of good jobs for noncollege workers was construction. so both of those pay about 30% more, but in the last 20 years we have seen an actual reduction in the number of good jobs, job growth has occurred in sectors like restaurants and retail trade, and leisure and hospitality and so on. those are often minimum wage jobs with no benefits. so this has contributed to a pulling apart of the economy economically. those with scholarship degrees have done better and those at the bottom have seen their incomes stagnate and this is a result of the elimination of manufacturing jobs in our economy. this is also had a regional dimension.

workers with advanced degrees can concentrate on the coast, so we have seen those regions pulling away income wise. i think the wealthiest region see huge increases in income in both the individual and family level of the last two decades. in contrast regions that content -- that concentrated in manufacturing has seen largely stagnant or falling incomes. this has contributed to the outrage that many working families feel about being abandoned by members of both parties, and the reason they are outraged as they blame trade deals like nafta or the agreements between china and the wto. those are the policies that they know of that eliminated 70,000 faculties -- of factories and millions of jobs. host: from new bedford, massachusetts. paul on the republican line.

go ahead. caller: i would like to first apologize, i meant to be on the democratic line, it is more of a comment. i was fascinated by your critique, mr. ryan regarding the zoning laws, and i sometimes wonder if they are at the very heart, the deep layer to a lot of things that are not seen in our systems. you know, that shape our economy and behavior. for example i look at real estate being a dominant factor in our economy, and how zoning laws, perhaps, have shaped over the years the thing that made us not manufacture so much. we have moved away from some of the talks and things like that and shipped them to china cheap labor, there is an interesting

dynamic, it is not one-way, it seems to have a lot of interrelationships that are more complex. anyway, and on top of that -- host: i will leave you -- i will leave you there, but we will let mr. young go first. >> you are onto something with the zoning laws. they make housing more expensive and reduce the number of affordable housing. like i said about the death by 1000 cuts. one reason housing is expensive because president trump enacted steel tariffs, he enacted new aluminum tariffs, president biden doubled lumber tariffs, and then on top of that you have zoning and land-use restrictions. that is a big reason. there is inflation up to 6%. you put all of this together and zoning and land use rest -- restrictions is why housing is at a record price and it includes all, -- all kinds of others including long beach, california. host: on the topic of regulation

and how that factors into what is going on? guest: this is largely a domestic factor. it does influence land-use policies, and it does encourage people to engage in suburban sprawl. it has made the cost of housing, especially in centralized cities artificially high. we have a real sordid shortage in those kinds of areas. it forces people to move away. covid accelerated that and they found that they could live anywhere in their country and they could telecommute to work and there is a certain percentage of the cop -- of the population that can do that. this contributed to pulling apart and local housing moves that have been driving up prices, and desirable places around the country. tariffs have had an effect but i think they are -- they are not

the most important factor. i think the changes in patterns of living have had a much better impact -- bigger impact on housing. it is not really a supply chain problem. the supply chain problem is a trade problem and that represents two years of -- 2 -- host: let us hear from bill on the independent line. hello. bill? go ahead. caller: my name is phil, and the question i had for both of them is that on the tariffs, i am in construction and i remodel hotels as well as doing larger projects. the chinese got past tariffs by buying out the manufacturing companies in vietnam and sending all the supplies over from vietnam to the united states

without having to pay tariffs. how are they addressing that. host: robert scott, you go first. guest: that is precisely how the chinese did that. over the last two decades china has become one of the wealthiest countries in the world by buying up treasuring bills -- treasury bills and the not using money. they are sitting on $25 million of reserves and they have invested in factories and all they are also buying up ports and national resource bases in countries all over the world, essentially through their belt and wrote initiative. it is -- there are well plans to dominate the global economy. and so when the tariffs hit they were well prepared and moved production to vietnam and malaysia and many other countries around the world. we have seen a huge surge in imports from canada and mexico

where there are zero tariffs. and much of the increase comes from china and china has not been affected one wit in terms of its overall exports to the world because of those tariffs. the principal impact has been to increase the prices of goods coming in from china. even now there are ways to get around them. for example, much of the surge of imports coming in due to amazon and walmart, others are coming in small shipments that are at $800. they have tariff -- they evade tariffs and there is a clause that allows them to evade tariffs altogether on small packages of low value, and so tariffs are not making everything from china more expensive and they know how to evade and engage in both legal and illegal shipping.

it is not legal, and yet it is happening and it should be enforced more aggressively. host: mr. young. >> we are essentially describing a game of whack a mole. china was moving some of its labor intensive production in vietnam, thailand and other countries before this was happening because like we all know, china is becoming a wealthier country. their average income is about a quarter of what it was here, a lot more than they had -- a lot more than it used to be. the tariffs, as we see, do not work, it is like a game of whack a mole. if we accelerate crowdsourcing, what are we going to do with vietnam? it is clear that they will not accomplish what we want them to do which means we have to try other strategies. there is the transpacific partnership that the u.s. dropped out of on the president trump's third day in office and

that alliance is continuing without u.s. involvement. we could do a lot of good serving as a counterweight to china and we could provide a countable -- a counterweight and tariffs are counterproductive to the strategy. host: both gentlemen to talk about issues of supply chains and what is going on. you heard from ryan young of the competitive enterprise institute. also joining us, robert scott of the economic policy institute who serves as a senior economist. even though the biden administration was talking about what it was doing on the supply chain side, the federal trade commission announcing a study into retailer practices during this time and what they might factor into. read you a little bit of the statement from the chair of the ftc said this about this investigation saying "supply chain disruptions are upending the delivery of a wider range of goods from computer chips to medicines, meats, and lumber.

i'm hoping the study will shed light on market conditions and business practices that they might have worsened during the disruption or lead to asymmetric effects. the ftc has a long history of pursuing market studies and we shall continue to make nimble and timely use of these information gathering tools." it is noted that some of these investigations will include walmart, amazon, and procter & gamble, what do you think about the study and looking at the retailer role. >> i think it is political theater. every time the price increase as you will find an investigation with the ftc, and for one, the findings will not be released in time to do any good. and two, it would not do any good because it is a death by 1000 cuts that we are experiencing, a combination of state, local, and federal policies that need to be enacted, most of the minor and

some statement from the ftc that will do to fix that will take much more from tariffs, land use, zoning, -- zoning, and truck deregulations. host: looking at this from the ftc perspective, what do you think? guest: i think the study is long overdue, we have a problem with the excessive concentrations of market power with these very large firms and that affects consumers in two ways. the retail level at higher prices and then also on the wage side. these firms are not paying market level wages because they are the only provider of labor. we need to consider looking up these firms. this is not a short-term project it is a long-term small dust project. they have shown that prophets in america, the average rate of profit reached a 50 year high in the most recent quarter. in -- this reflects increasing market power of these giant

retailers. so they are getting rich and contributing to inflation by raising prices and it is not showing up in the wage packets of working families and americans. i think it is critical. i do think we have to address the root causes. we have been discussing tariffs and we have been talking about realigning the dollar or lowering it will actually make u.s. -- the u.s. more competitive both here at home as well as creating jobs and the need to import so many goods like l.a. and long beach. host: i am curious to what he suggested about the dollar, what do you think the concept? >> inflation is a monetary phenomenon, it is when too much currency is facing too few goods. we need to spend less so there is less deficit spending which is why test which is where there is a source so, i agree with you

on that. so, the federal reserve also needs to start tightening things down and starts doing it now because there is too much money into few goods. it reduces the amount of -- it means unclogging the supply chain, even though there are no charismatic goods. host: here is alvin, illinois on the republican line. caller: i think you and everyone -- thank you and everyone on c-span and everybody giving their opinions. it is one of the few stations that i trust. i think everybody who is talking is overlooking a very significant point, and this is the geopolitical theft of our

country. we have so many overseas manufacturing that if we were to be an actual shooting battle and economic battle with russians or ukraine, right now, our manufacturing session -- in fact, truck has a mandate to keep our aluminum industry open. what is happening now is if you listen to the military, we have lost our capability to manufacture for our defense's needs because everything is going all over the world. if we were to have a potential major conflict with russia or china, we do not have the manufacturing resources to get the production capital as we were in world war ii. i think that we are overlooking, and nobody is commenting and nobody is talking about the

space. that is showing how vulnerable are -- we are to a major superpower borrowing -- barring any nonnuclear exchange of losing a battle, losing the pacific. host: that is alvin in illinois ringing up the national security aspect as he sees it. what do you think about those? >> we import about one third of our steel, so the domestic producers make 70% or so. 26% goes to cars and 40% to construction. earlier i said 60, it is about two -- two thirds to those two things. defenses -- defense uses two or 3% of steel. if tomorrow we were she -- we would use -- if we were to lose 30% of steel, only 2% or 3% would not be affected going to our defense point. we are safe and sound from that point but we want to stay

resilient, and that is not by hunkering down, it is opening up strength and resilience. you cannot be cut out of a global market. the more we are engaged with the market, whatever there is a point of failure there is a note that we can adapt and reroute. if we close down we have fewer opportunities to cooperate and compete in america would be much weaker and less wealthier, we would have fewer resources to fight. host: mr. scott? guest: i think the caller is spot on that increasing dependence on imported products increases our vulnerability on the military side and we saw those 15 years ago when we were involved in a minor shooting war in the middle east. we were trying to fire cruise missiles and there was a shortage of circuit boards used to produce the cruise missiles. so there was a problem in the supply chain.

but it is not just on the military side. this shows up where we have weather disasters as well, for example the power lines in texas a year and a half ago in a terrible winter storm. they could not get the capacitors because those are made abroad as well. these very long supply chains to make us more vulnerable to supply disruptions. we saw that this past winter when that gigantic container ship got clogged up in the cat -- in the panama canal and global shipping got backed up for two or three weeks and this caused all kinds of obstructions in europe in the united states, but the point remains when you are disgracing -- you need to disagrees -- a decrease long supply chains. when you are expecting to import goods in a single year alone, you are having to adjust capacity, you have to make

massive investments to pay for and subsidize the imports rather than coming up with a strategy to make more products at home and to consolidate supply chains and reduce our vulnerability is to imports, again on national defense and national security and economic security sides. i think this is a potential win-win issue, it is not about the theory of terrorists or micro-adjustments, it is introducing major policy changes to rebuild our own domestic manufacturing sector there and using our resources most efficiently. we are not doing that. host: mark in massachusetts. independent line. caller: thank you guys, can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: mr. young, i like what you were saying about the port of l.a. being only able to

process one third of what rotterdam and how inefficient and with the unions. i want to talk about the trade of lumber in this recently enacted tariff from canada. i was under the impression that there was already a 19% softwood tariff on all softwoods from canada unless it was processed. i have been seeing lumber from germany, saw ward lumber, red pine probably by way of the arctic or nordic areas, maybe russia, so maybe they are trying to circumvent. i think trump's tariffs has shown that with imports up, tariffs are a total waste. thank you. host: go ahead. >> if that is your goal then you picked the wrong strategy. they just do not work. president trump did increase canadian lumber tariffs and

president biden has further increased them. they are 17.7% and i do not know the exact number that it is in that ballpark. if any of you are looking to buy a house anytime soon, my condolences, even if you do not want new construction. by nate -- by making new construction scares that drives people to existing houses which makes them more expensive which is happening during a crisis with inflation with consumers who are the forgotten person, i do not think they have gotten enough attention. guest: i think mr. young must be a little bit younger than i am. but inflation is not at record level. i lived in the 1970's when we had inflation that peaked at the double-digit levels and posted 20% in this country. what we have now is short-term supply chain disruptions because we are super -- so dependent on imports and we do not make things in this country. so we have massive shortages on

commodities. all of the things that we hear about all the time. but, i think these will go away in six to 12 months, in part because there has been no sustained increased in the cost of production. wages are not going up as fast as prices. we cannot have a classic wage-price spiral like we did in the 1970's and early 1980's. it is a very different economy. this inflation situation is a short-term problem, mostly rooted in energy and food prices. but, again it is going to go away, i think, over time. host: one of the topics that came up on the larger discussion of supply chains was that of semi conductors, the commerce secretary traveled and was giving a speech on the semiconductor industry and what she thought the role of congress

should be considering concerns about supply chains. i want to play a portion of what she had to say. [video clip] >> the act will include $52 billion to allow the department of commerce to set up a semi conductor fund and we will use that $52 billion to incentivize domestic manufacturing of chips. it also establishes the national semi conductor -- semiconductor technology center which will boost research and development. if we are going to stay at the cutting edge, we have to lead in innovation and r&d. and so this is money into research and development which will lead to new products in the future. here is the reality, we cannot wait because the rest of the world is not waiting period china, taiwan, the e.u. and all

of the other countries around the world are not waiting, they are incentivizing and subsidizing the production of chips right now and they have been for a long time. [end video clip] host: she was talking about a piece of legislation, the chips act which would provide some of the things that she talked about. what do you think about that concept or the idea and endorsing that mr., you go first. -- mr. scott, you go first. guest: we need to have policies complement currency and trade policies. we do have to compete, and this is what the secretary was pointing out. china especially but also korea, japan, the e.u., they have all invested tens of billions of dollars just into the semiconductor industry alone. unfortunately we will need to keep up and build our own semi conductor plans to address some of the shortages. we also know that it is true

that when factories move abroad research tends to follow as well , so r&d investments have fallen as we seen our industrial base eroded. we have to make that cap -- two replace the resources that we lost over the last few decades. i think the secretary was spot on when she said -- when she talked about the senate policy propose. host: what you think about the concept? >> i think it is corporate welfare, plain and simple. it will cause the semiconductor resort -- industry to redirect its resources to lobby washington and attach all kind of strings, whether regulatory, labor, environmental policies that will distract from the mission of making more chips and the u.s. industry stronger and more towards politics. it is copying what china does,

and in general as a guide to public policy i would encourage us to avoid copying china's policies mistakes. host: do you think of it was enacted china would retaliate or how? >> that would subs -- they would subsidize that industry. china might also retaliate by enacting more tariffs, because we all know how unrealistic president trump's agreement ended up being. they might do that, which would get more response. there are a lot of dimensions along which this is simply bad policy, and again, u.s. manufacturing output, how much stuff does american make, -- do americans make? our manufacturing sector has not been dismantled it is making near record output. that includes semiconductors. host: that potential for retaliation by china, what do you think? guest: it is possible, but we have to recognize it is keeping

up with china and other countries. china has a massive plan for industrial policies. the china 2025 plan with the targeted investments in well over a dozen key high-tech sectors, they plan to dominate every one of these industries, batteries and semi conductors and so on. we have to confront that challenge head on. we cannot afford to stand aside and let china take over all of these key sectors, which are the core of these main ventures. i do not think we can afford to wait, we have to confront china on a number of web -- of levels. china can impose tariffs and sometime -- and somehow uses effectively but our use of tariffs is not effective. the tariffs are a bad idea for everybody, in most cases except in a narrow circumstances when you are dealing with specific unfair trade policies.

i have worked on those cases in 30 years in steel and aluminum. i support those very narrowly defined tariffs but not the broad tariffs that trump put in place against china and others. those did not work and we know that. we both agree on that. host: luis, california on the pope -- on the republican line. caller: listen, i have a quick question but before i do i want to throw it a comet regarding the semiconductor, it is a great opportunity to create an empowerment zone between the united states and mexico and produce semi conductors along the mexican side of the border to save money, and in terms of wages health mexico rebound the economy so you do not have immigrants coming across the border. here's my question regarding the commerce clause in archons fusion which was written over 200 years ago when all the states were small and growing. now if you look at it and

revisit it, state policies impact other states. mr. young was referencing the issues at the port of long beach and los angeles -- in los angeles and those obstacles and other parts of the country, those are local state issues, but at some point they are starting to impact adjacent states with regards to being the ability to move goods. here's a question i have for these two gentlemen, i would like to hear their thoughts, should there be a third party, or maybe an independent commission overlooking state -- state level laws that are impacting adjacent states. we all know that the supreme court is looking at a states rights issue right now, but it can actually look at other states rights issues. we are no longer in the 1700s, and so lines have blurred among cities and states. and so, who is going to oversee the decisions on various state

levels that are starting to impact adjacent states and regions? host: mr. scott, you go first. guest: i think he raises very good issues, unfortunately we have to deal with the constitution we have inherited. it is a weak central government and that is a reality. there are things we can do to better coordinate. ours is a society where we make small incremental changes, and i think the incremental changes need to move in the direction of beginning to do more national planning and making national strategies. for example, with japan, with four or five decades organized its economy using its ministry of industry of trade. that was an agency in charge of coming up with national plans for all of their major industries and china is running new trade surpluses and dominates world trade.

we need a similar plan for semi conductors and other key sectors of our economy. so, i think that we can use federal resources and incentives to get states to coordinate better in louisville more fundamental changes -- in replacement of more fundamental changes, but i think we have to deal with the constitution that we have. >> that is an interesting idea, the commerce clause, the courts back in the 1930's really limited the power of the commerce clause and it has not changed sense. i do not see too many avenues for the courts. the idea of a commission is interesting and that is something i would like to look into. that could be something. yes. really when you want to get substance over form, you need to not look at just this or that

bad a regulation you need to look at larger structures, how are these things made and how can you prevent bad ones from passing. whether or not your commission idea and that being feasible, i think you are in the right direction looking at larger institutions instead of just the policy. host: the website for the competitive institute enterprise institute is cei.org. robert scott with the economic policy institute there website is eci.org. thank you for joining us in happy holidays to both of you. guest: thank you for having us. host: we will do a round of open forum for the next 25 minutes or so if you want to comment on this segment or anything else of public policy or politics that includes just that interest you. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

independents, 202-748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. ♪ ♪ >> the book is called "wasp" and it stands for white anglo-saxon protestant. the subtitle for the new york lawyer's examination for -- of the wasp culture is the " splendors and miseries of an american aristocracy." the people have familiar names from history, frankland and eleanor -- franklin and eleanor roosevelt, t.s. eliot, and whittaker chambers, just to name a few. the publisher writes that wasp's

were creatures of glamour, power and privilege and yet they were unhappy. >> on this episode of book notes+, it is available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is open forum, you can comment on matters of politics and public policies on

the lines and you can text us at 202-748-8003, and poster -- on our twitter feed at c-spanwj or our facebook page facebook.com/c-span. the world new section of "the wall street journal" takes a look at the latest negotiations between iran and a group of countries. "iran deal negotiation stall. the new negotiating team joining talks for the first time since the hardliner and president took office ramped up their conditions for a return to the deal and issued many of -- aschewed many of the compromises to restrain future nuclear work. talks will continue with the other countries and iran has made progress to having some key ingredients for a nuclear bomb the united nations reported. u.s. officials are warning that some of iran's advances are

irreversible meaning that time is running out to restore the original nuclear pact." that is in "the wall street journal." you can comment on that or other issues. jay on the republic -- on the democrats, line, ui first up. good morning. host: -- caller: that roundtable was beautiful. issues of concern it should be a discussion on both sides. i ask you the question last month, and you do not have an answer, so i will ask you again. are you familiar with the study that was done in israel for natural immunity? host: i am not. caller: israel did a study earlier this year with 2 million people and found that natural immunity was 13 times more effective than the vaccine.

my question is when it comes to the vaccine, why hasn't c-span had a roundtable one side supporting the vaccine another side or someone discussing the study that israel did on natural immunity? i think that would be a good idea for discussion, because the vaccine is not an end all be all. host: thank you for the suggestion. you mean natural immunity as far as they get covid and have the antibodies present after that? is that the basis of the study? caller: absolutely, like i said earlier this year they did a study of 2 million people and found that the natural immunity is 13 times more effective than the vaccine.

i know that israel is a close ally, and that study has been absolutely ignored. it has just been get the jab and there is nothing else. dr. fauci has said in an immunity -- in an interview that natural immunity is something that should be discussed, but it is never discussed, and -- host: thank you for the suggestion, i appreciate it. randy in kentucky, republican line. caller: the fellow was just talking they and it was called communist control of the news media is why they do not discuss about it just like ivermectin, which is used all around the world and you are not allowed to talk about it. and you are not the law -- you were not allowed to put out information about it. it is something that saved many

lives, and once this thing is over, if we ever come closer to getting it under control, i think we need to have to have something done for the news media and pull politicians that have silenced voices and so many studies around the world have been done on it already. the one in israel that this gentleman was talking about, natural immunity was 27 times greater than the shot. and also in the united states, the study they did was 17 times greater. and the university of vanderbilt is doing a study on ivermectin in the united states. they are doing a study about that and it is very positive around the world. these are doctors that i put their lives and careers and their reputations on the line to try and this information out

there, and they are being made out like they are total fools and idiots. host: you made your point. tommy is in eugene, oregon on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. caller: we talk about china as as an entity working against the united states. i have been coming to the understanding that we have allowed china in order to keep its labor to peg its currency to our currency so it is not able to reach its actual evaluate -- actual valuation, so doesn't that put us at a disadvantage? host: that may be the case but i do not know, i am not an economist or currency expert by training. but go ahead and finish your thought. caller: if there is a big enemy,

and we always say that they have -- and somebody says that we need to pump up the military against them, but why are we allowing them to peg their currency to our currency? host: that is tommy. we will hear from david in arizona, the democrats line. caller: i was going to talk about tax policy, but this covid conversation really is something that i think that we do need to talk more about. i trust a lot that is set on the media. i think that the drugs that are out there, the vaccines were approved and tested. but i also think the other side of the argument about the news not getting out there and truth not getting out there, i think that we probably will uncover some truth about that. i think a lot of times when

people think that the person that is talking about some drug being a cure all and about how the government is hiding it, they start to sound crazy so we dismissed those things. i do think there seems to be some truth coming out of those. and what i think we will find at the end of all of this, i do not think there will be some nuremberg trial, but i think we will find that there were some things on both sides that we should have paid closer attention to. host: that is david in scottsdale, arizona. we go next to steve in virginia, republican line, you are next. >> the whole thing is about trusting the media and people just don't. i think it's because you have them doing the zone and addison

cooper doing 60 minutes. they are all one group and if you don't agree with me your shutdown. it really dictates the country. except for fox news, if you don't watch it, you don't seem to get other sides of things. what's going on this country, i hope it gets taken care of. that is really my comment. host: being is in maryland, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. a couple things i would like to pinpoint. number one, it seems like mccarthy and jim jordan must be related some sow. they are always on the negative side of things. one thing with mccarthy this morning when he was crying blues about the gas prices, i understand there up, but look at the other end of the ballpark. the cost of living in california is higher than the east coast and those people make up your

paychecks. a tractor-trailer in maryland makes $70,000 a year and california makes $140,000 a year. it doesn't really make any sense. i think also one other thing is i heard on your previous caller -- previous hour when one caller called and said the aspect was there was no jobs president biden was making. really? did we look at the infrastructure bill. creating jobs in the bill itself as far as bridges, roads, and other things. thank you for your time. host: he mentioned the minority leader of the house, kevin mccarthy, who held a press conference yesterday. one of the topics addressed was the interparty squabble you probably read about highlighted in the washington post. under the headline gop leaders

evade addressing islam a phobic rhetoric. it rights house republicans leaders have yet to publicly denounce the islam a phobic language employed by representative of california, marjorie taylor greene of georgia and a democrat from minnesota, including statement is the muslim lawmakers of course terrorists and is bloodthirsty. at like her to a suicide bomber. he was asked about the party squabble, here's a portion of it. >> our marjorie taylor greene talks of distractions to winning back the majority next year. >> it is things we do not want to deal with, gas prices and others in any deviation of that causes problems. >> islamophobia comments, why do you have such a hard time

condemning something that is clearly wrong. >> let me be very clear, this party is for anyone and everyone who craves freedom and supports religious liberty. lauren, as i called her when she came forward, we talked and she apologized publicly, personally, i contacted lawyer and even talked about maybe steny and i should be in the room. we should lower the temperature of this congress. we should work together and talk to one another. and disagreements if something goes astray, apologize for it. exactly what he did. what is interesting to me, i didn't get to watch speaker pelosi's press conference. did you raise the question someone on their side of the aisle set i work with the ku klux klan referring to republicans? does anyone on your side of the aisle talk about when omar -- said the only reason i support

israel is about the benjamin's. i never got a public apology or phone call. did anybody on your side of the aisle -- i think you might've asked speaker pelosi about this one. when congresswoman omar referred to american taliban as equal, because i remember speaker pelosi saying something to the effects, and i could be wrong, but it was to the effect that she did not denounce her for saying that. so i think when somebody does something, they apologize. he apologized publicly and then picked up the phone and it took a lot of effort. she wanted to meet personally. denied the ability to meet personally. when she picked up the phone and called, congresswoman omar, she said i want to personally apologize to you and that is what she did. i think in america that is what we do and we move on on the

issues that need to take place. host: you can see more on the website at c-span.org. let's hear from steven in illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning. this idea of natural immunity is total insanity. how does one know if you have natural immunity? if you don't get a vaccination and you don't have natural immunity and get the covid virus and die, then why? where is your natural immunity? you don't have that. you get a vaccination to be cautious and careful and sharp. it is pretty easy. the proof is in the pudding. these stupid people saying natural immunity and natural immunity. tell that to the 800,000 people that are dead and the millions of people that have had the coronavirus and are going to have serious and do have serious medical problems. this is craziness. host: stephen in illinois.

we hear from betty in indianapolis. independent line. caller: good morning. the reason why i wanted to talk today is because i am very interested in a couple of things. one is the fentanyl that comes in from china. a great number of people it is killing. it is insanity for americans to take fentanyl and kill 200,000 people a year. and without any guns or anything. they are killing more people that died in the war of vietnam. also, the mood of the country is not very good right now. i feel like people are not ambitious anymore. in the 1950's, when i grew up,

people were ambitious, they wanted families and they wanted houses and they wanted things with their children. now it seems as though they just sit on the sidelines and wait for things to come to them. host: the topic of fentanyl, the topic of hearing at the house energy commerce. earlier this week, it was administration officials testifying on the topic of regulation of fentanyl-based substances. if you want to see the hearing, go to our website at c-span.org. you can he see -- you can see what the administration set about the topic. from john in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. i just want to talk about the supply chain thing. i find it disturbing the u.s. mailman -- mail person, male woman has to deliver emma john

-- deliver amazon packages. there was a discussion about this years ago and i have not heard anything more about it. i did talk to the postal workers and said i would not blame you if you go on strike even though everybody needs their presence through the mail this time of year. this amazon guy, thank god he sent him into space, he should not be putting this on the back of the u.s. postal workers. i have an uncle that is a mailman. host: richard in texas, democrats line. caller: good morning. when we talk about the covid situation and particularly natural immunity, i think anytime we look at a solution

that is narrow, we are doing ourselves a distrust this. -- injustice. when we think about natural immunity and we think about the fact that there are variants that are going to have to be dealt with, rather than being so political, let's be more scientific. and to be sure that we come up with broad approaches to solve these problems and not some narrow one trick serves all. i think we need to look at dealing with the problem in a broad sense and not in some narrow way. thank you so much for having me. host: richard in texas giving us his thoughts. if you heard the president talking about the jobs report, might have noticed his voice is a little deeper. a story says he was asked about his health and attributed it to

a call. here are some of that exchange from the conference yesterday. [video clip] >> mr. president, first of all, your voice sounds a little deep. are you ok? >> i'm ok. i have taken a covid test. what i have is a one and a half your grandson who got a cold and loves to kiss his pop. anyway, it is just a cold. host: those press conferences, the jobs number report yesterday. you can see that at c-span.org. on the republican line, this is susan. hello. caller: i'm calling because the two gentlemen, the study they were talking about, many of my relatives get their news from instagram, facebook, and i suggested that they do a little fact checking because what the gentleman stated, the figures were true about the study.

it found that 27% better meant for people who had natural immunity, but the fact-check will go on to show you that what that instagram and preponderant did not mention is the people that have natural immunity, their risk are getting infected also wanes with time. also, the people that had natural immunity that were vaccinated, even one those of the vaccination, had a higher rate of not getting covid. i thought the most important thing i read was that unvaccinated people are much more -- because many people will get covid and not have any side effects and maybe they wonder why they should get vaccinated. i am vaccinated -- any unvaccinated person infected

poses a much greater risk to those unvaccinated and even vaccinated people, particularly the vulnerable and elderly an immuno compromise. if we are people that care about other people, that might be the most import in fact i told you. host: that is susan in to connecticut. the department of justice contends it should defend former president trump and his 2019 defamation suit. the justice department lawyer argued friday the u.s. should be allowed to represent donald trump in a defamation suit, saying the law protects a president from being sued in such a case. the 2019 lawsuit, it alleged mr. trump lied earlier when -- if the second u.s. court of appeal ruled an fate of the justice department, it would almost certainly bring an end to her case because federal employees cannot be sued for defamation for actions they take

in their official capacity. more on that in the wall street journal if you want to read it there. from st. louis, missouri, independent line, hello. caller: hello. i have been thinking about things, watching in decades past and all kinds of things, and i think one reason why we keep having all of these problems is because some issues people tackle, which are very -- they are like red-hot issues like abortion, baby killer. you will hear people who are gay and lesbian, they are committing sodomy, it is dangerous, we will be destroyed. some religious groups seem to hate other religious groups or fear them. i remember when we first went into the war near iraq, some said it was a clash of one religious group against another.

there was a person appointed by trump who says he thinks that the koran and his lot -- koran and islamic faith -- quaran is at odds of the constitution. i think we are not learning how to deal with us getting angry and we need to cope with them. host: one more call, tom in el paso texas. republican line. caller: this whole debate about covid-19 is really over emergency use authorization. that is the government's planning go and that is why we will continue to have variants that will come along, so they can continue to induce fear into the american people. you can prove this by taking a look at the approach we have really gone about with regard to try to reduce infection rates. they are constantly testing people for covid-19 when we should be being tested for

immunity, for t cells. this way we can know who has natural immunity or even has immunity from the so-called vaccine. the other thing is you know this too because they have done everything they can to block therapeutics to keep people healthy. hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, the have all -- these have all been repressed and pushed down and it has been driven by the global elites and by the powerful pharmaceutical companies making billions and billions of dollars off something that is not even effective. to your color susan in connecticut, i do not think she is right. i think the studies they did in israel to find out about natural immunity and effectiveness of it is correct. we probably need to have three to four more studies around the world but the bottom line is that is what we should be shooting for, taking the power away from the federal government

and let american ingenuity take care of this. we have the therapeutics to do it. caller: that is tom finishing off this session of open forum. thanks to those of you who participated. another medical topic that we will address next up is the topic of cancer. joining us on our spotlight a podcast segment, we hear from dr. diane, the host of cancer straight talk from the msk podcast, discussing the 50th anniversary of the cancer acts, among other things. she will join us when we continue. >> next week on the c-span network, both chambers of congress are in session. the house will take up a bill to prevent abuses of presidential power and protect against foreign interference in elections. the senate will continue working on executive nominations including confirmation of the next sec chair on tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the c-span now mobile video app.

i house oversight and reform subcommittee set threats posed by terrorist organizations like al qaeda and isis with a counterterror -- with the counterterrorism heads from the state and defense department. attend a clock a.m. eastern on c-span3, the inspector general of the u.s. capitol police testifies in an oversight hearing by the senate rules and administration committee following the january 6 attack on the capital. that afternoon on c-span3, the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing on u.s. relations with russia as a country gathers more troops on its border with ukraine. wednesday, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and the c-span now mobile video app, the house financial services committee looks at cryptocurrencies and other digital assets with testimony from ceos at several digital currency companies. at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3, instagram's ceo testifies before a senate commerce, science, and transformation -- transportation

subcommittee to protect kids online. watch next week on the c-span networks or watch our full coverage on c-span now, our new mobile video app. also had over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is time for our spotlight on podcast segment and we are joined by dr. diane eidy-lagunes, a medical oncologist at memorial sloan-kettering and the host of cancer straight talk from msk podcasts. doctor, think you for giving us your time. guest: thank you so much. it is an honor to be here. happy holidays. host: what birthed the concept of this part hast -- podcast? guest: it was created from conversations in my clinic. i have been an oncologist for 15 years and i was hoping to educate and empower anyone touched by cancer. we all have our stories and to

really help them along the cancer journey. as you know, we in the medical oncology community, everything we do is to help save lives. equally important is to ensure our patients are living happier and healthier lives. part of that is communication and transparency. it'll teach the patient and caregiver where they are in the journey and what to they really expect on what will happen. i think many of us in the oncology community, clinicians and non-clinicians, are focusing on that care but we are worried we want to save their lives and focusing on the side effects of treatments and other things that we are not having conversations with the patient that they want us to have on nutrition, exercise, and other important concept we often don't have time to have in the clinic. this was the opportunity to talk to anyone touched by cancer and giving them an opportunity to learn as much as they can. host: so that is the concept of straight talk as far as the title is concerned. guest: exactly right.

fortunately or unfortunately, there is a lot of information on the internet. some of which is tremendous and helpful but some of which is fictional and untrue. trying to unravel that, understanding what is really not real and taking that and unraveling the confusion that helping our patients can be helpful. that is one of the most important purposes of the podcasts. host: who is listening to this? guest: i think it is anyone touched by cancer. we have had international as well as national sort of folks that are listening to us. we try to focus a lot on the day today of what to expect, but we are sort of surprised that even the patient population and number of caregivers across the gambit in terms of age, population, and other things. we are excited it has taken off. host: to your other job at memorial sloan-kettering, for those unfamiliar, what is it and what does it do in the role of cancer research? guest: memorial sloan-kettering

is one of the first nci designated foundations in terms of being a cancer center and i have been honored to be a part of it for 15 plus years. most of us wear two hats, taking care of our patients today and tomorrow. our focus is not only on the patient care of patients and family members dealing with these terrible diseases but also rang to keep the eye on the ball and how we can improve therapies and technologies to ensure we have more cares and our patients of tomorrow have better outcomes. host: doctor, it was 50 years ago president nixon signed the national cancer act. it did a number of things, including expanding authorities and responsibilities of national cancer institute, provided direct access to the president on these topics. some of federal government's role -- in your medical role, that is one thing. as far as the federal government's role in fighting and researching cancer, how would you evaluate that? guest: i think cancer -- 150 years ago when president nixon

sat down with his two pens and signed the national cancer act, he sort of said to us we were going to -- we put a main on the moon, we split the atom, and he said we would find a cure for this dreadful disease. what we have learned in the last 50 years is it is many diseases, sort of what's in a name. there are hundreds if not thousands of different types of diseases we call cancer, which is many reasons why the cancers develop. i think it is an all hands on deck approach. we have to have a government involvement and injection of resources and energy. we have cooperative group trials where all of us together in the cancer community will work on enrolling patients but, importantly, i think 50 years ago, the national cancer act did inject the energy and resources to do this. with $1.6 billion at the time, which is equivalent of $9 billion today. today we have $5 billion a year in our budget for this. i think there is tremendous

efforts in all opportunities, including private pharmaceutical industries, to help us with the diseases. i think what we have learned in the last 50 years is that it is complicated. thankfully, we have absolutely improved the lives and we have certainly more ways to go. ensuring we continue that message at a government level i think is absolutely critical to help our patients. host: how guest is with us until the top of the hour. if you want to ask questions about cancer research and podcast, we divided the lines different leap. for those of you cancer patients and survivors, call us at (202) 748-8000. if you are on the others' line or anyone else that wants to asked her question, (202) 748-8001. you can text us to (202) 748-8003. dr. diane eidy-lagunes, president nixon described it as a war. where are we in the war as far as life expectancy, research

overall, how would you characterize that? guest: i think we have made tremendous strides. i would say from prevention to early detection to treatment. on preventions, we know the use of colonoscopy, if you have a colonoscopy and you see this what we call a polyp or premalignant lesion there, and you take that out, the risk goes down by 90% that you don't get a cancer. this is a way to prevent the cancer from happening. vaccines for hepatitis b and hpv, these are ways we have prevented folks from developing these cancers, which are life-threatening. public advocate ski -- public advocacy groups and other things have improved the lives dramatically and the data shows it. in the last 30 years, we have decreased cancer related deaths, adjusting for age, by one third. that translates to 1.6 million lives saved because of -- in

just one year, because of cancer early detection and prevention. early detection in terms of breast-cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, these are cancers we are now detecting at a much earlier stage, which leads to more cares. last but not least, we have had an absolutely treatment revolution in terms of therapies and ways we deliver cancer care today. before, we used traditional chemotherapies and even today, people say why do we still use these chemotherapies? they cure disease. but we also know that they really lasting side effects sometimes. -- leave lasting side effects sometimes. it is important we are talking quality and quantity when dealing with these therapies. the ability to give therapies in different ways like immunotherapy treatments and cell therapies and genetic treatments, we weren't even able to have the conversation 10 years ago. there were ideas in the

laboratory that have come to fruition and are saving lives today. it is an incredible time to be able to say to our patients, based on prevention and detection and treatment, we are doing what we need to do to improve all of the patients that are affected by this. host: doctor, we saw covid impacts regular patient visits aside from covid. how does that impact those dealing with cancer? guest: that's a great question. as we were watching the devastation of covid-19, we were worried, those of us in the cancer community, that a lot of our patients were home and not having the appropriate screening that could help us early to tact to that could be cared. thank fully, the data suggests that probably is not the case, that people have gone back to get their screening, and for those on the call, if you have not yet, i encourage you to do so. there are strong protocols in all of the hospitals to protect you and prevent you from being exposed to the virus. i think that this is another

deadly disease, these cancers are cancers that we really want to be able to detect and treat and we do not want covid-19 to yet do another sort of problem that our country is facing. so this is one we are encouraging folks that if they had knocked out screened to do it. host: the doctor is joining us for the podcast segment. she is from msk podcast. our first caller comes from benjamin in fort lauderdale, a cancer survivor. you are on with our guest. good money. caller: good morning, doctor. my question is a simple one. after my diagnosis about eight years ago, of which i have survived, i felt once i was in the hospital, i was treated more as a protocol than as a patient. i wonder if you can address that. the sense of humanity or sense of closeness with physicians

and health care professionals fell distance. i felt like i was a protocol rather than patient. can you address that? guest: it is a really important question. honestly, one of the main reasons i started the podcast. i think we in the oncology community are here to help our patients, but we are so focused on making sure that you get cared that we don't often have the kind of conversations that show that we really do have the humanity, that we went into this war the right reasons. one of our episodes is on the importance of survivorship, patients cared for their disease and then we say bye-bye and they say i'm not ready to leave, i am afraid and i have a lot of other issues i may have other types of side effects. so we are having these conversations on the podcast to say you are not alone. others feel that way. i think that we probably could do better in the oncology community to sometimes show that in a deeper way but i think it does take a special person to go into the cancer

world. clinicians and non-clinicians alike. but i hear you. that was one of the most important reasons i started the podcast, to say we don't take care of the cancer, we take care of you and we want you to know that. on behalf of my members in the community, not only at memorial but other places, that is what we are trying to convey in the podcast. host: how do you determine topics for the podcast? who do you talk to? is it medical professionals, other professionals? guest: a great question. a little bit of all of the above. for our listeners, we encourage them to write in. if they have specific topics, we would love to hear from them. it most come from clinics. when i have conversation with folks and they asked me important questions. i always say i'm involved in some of the family advisory council and one of the most important things is our patients and family members provide us a blind spot that we have as doctors. i'm listening to them and hearing things when i'm like i'm just rang to keep you alive but

they are saying it is just as important to talk about sexual health. because this is real and this has changed since i have been on treatment so we have another episode on the podcast about that. we have something called an aya population, the adolescent young adult population, folks who are just starting their lives for the first time and they get this dreadful life altering diagnosis. all of a sudden, the walls come tumbling down. it is not only about the diagnosis but it is, how my going to start to work again? the financials and all of these. that is another episode where we can have a conversation on what is going on in there had to focus on the whole patient and not just a cancer diagnosis. host: we have a viewer off of twitter who asks you, doctor, there was a push a few years back to delay mammograms from women -- of women from 45 to 50. was that a mistake in hindsight? guest: that is a great question. i think one of the biggest

struggles we have an oncology is it is not only to cure more patients but first do no harm. what can happen in some of the diagnostic tests we have is something called false positive finding. in younger women that have what we call dense breasts, we can find things that we think are suspicious which leads to biopsies and often but rarely complications, then we find out it was not actually a cancer. so what is what we call this we spot of trying to find the ideal age where we are trying to detect that but also not imposing this harm on our patient populations of doing too many tests and going down that rabbit hole of not necessarily doing what we need to do for our patients. that is why it is important to have those conversations with your doc on what is your family history, what are the risks? do you have dense breasts or meet other modalities? these are conversations to have at the doctor but great question. host: this has been reported on

over the last few months, suggestion for the lowering of the age for a colonoscopy. what is driving that? guest: i just spoke about what we call the aya, the adolescent young adult population. it is -- in a striking and scary way, we notice a trend where our patients younger than 50 were developing colon cancer. we don't know why. the average age is 65. because the average age was 65, the recommendations were always get a colonoscopy at 50 so you had the time in between to find the polyp, take it out, and prevent the cancer. and in a scary way, we started to see that more and more of our young patients were developing these terrible diseases. we do not know why but it was for that reason that the american gastroenterology association suggested 45 be considered. certainly anyone with symptoms or with a family history should talk to their doctor about doing it earlier. we are trying to do those scopes earlier to prevent potentially

cancers and particularly in this type of patient population, if they have symptoms, we want to make sure we are detecting it and doing the right and us copies -- there's something called a micro biome where we have billions of bacteria in our gut and could that potentially be changing in terms of flora? we don't know. we know there is this trend and as a result, we went to be mindful for any of our young adults in 20's, 30's, 40's. if you have not had a colonoscopy and you have symptoms, see your doctor. host: don, hello. a cancer survivor. caller: good morning. good morning, doctor. it is ironic you mentioned that because i just had my first colonoscopy when i was 30 years old, had polyps removed, and i'm 41 now. it has been a challenge for sure. i just want to say thank you for

mentioning that and i wanted to ask your opinion, dr., because from what i understand, 80% of americans support medical cannabis, i've watched many things where the fda and different government people basically deny the evidence or knowledge or even 80% of american people that believe, by trying or knowing someone who has come a one way or another, used thc or cbd's with chronic pain or cancer to be more than helpful, if not as close to beneficial as some of the other medications that hospitals and people like yourself use. as a combination. i had two major back surgeries, opioids did not work for me.

they made things worse. that is when i was introduced to cannabis from a patient provider here in washington. that is actually now in missouri helping people. host: ok, color. we got the point and we will let our doctor respond. guest: you are absolutely right. i thing medical cannabis can absolutely help patients with symptoms. we do use it in new york here, particularly in this context in the medical scenting -- setting. practitioners have to have a medical license to prescribe that but i think there is no question it can help patients. for example, sometimes if they have neuropathy, numbness and tingling in the extremities. i wish it could help me treat cancer. that would make my life a lot easier. [laughter] then the traditional chemotherapies that we use. i think that there could be and should be a lot more testing on this. it is definitely going on but i

do not think there is any question that, for some patients for symptom control and nausea, as well as pain control, it is a great medication to be considered. host: we have heard, and you probably heard as well, about disparities in the health system, particularly with those on the lower income spectrum. what does that mean for those dealing with cancer and what options do those people have? guest: that is such an important question. i always encourage patients, no matter where you are, to be considered to be seen, at least for medical second opinion if you will and what we call national cancer institute designated cancer center. there is 71 across the country. particularly if you have an uncommon cancer. we are not smarter than anyone but in rare diseases when we are doing it all day long, we just have a knowledge base that may be different than the so-called community dr. which he or she is trying their best. but being able to be at a cancer designated center where they have the possibility of experiment of drugs that could

potentially help you and/or understand your disease better is certainly important. getting that out to folks that may not be as aware is super important, which is another reason we are trying to promote that on the podcast, to understand there are differences in where you get your treatment and where you get your treatment first really matters. we have really good data about that. it is important. we get one shot here. so we went our patients to not say i want to go to a cancer designated center not because i'm in trouble. you want to go at the time of diagnosis, to at least get an opinion. host: if someone does not have insurance or is dealing with finances, what options do they have? guest: i think today's society, that financial peace is so critical -- piece is so critical. we have terrible stories of people financing their homes to keep up with medical bills, not only in the cancer world but other diseases as well. there is hope and help out there. i think at the very least, to try to call the centers and

there are social workers and finance folks that can help you through that, case managers i can get us on the right track. if you are too far away, they can potentially do what we call -- we know telehealth is critically important nowadays. so there is other ways to get the opinion you need, even if you don't get the trim in there but you get the opinion. host: in new york on the line for others. hello. caller: good morning. my question for you is, what you think is the most important advancement in cancer research? guest: such a great question. we talked about before how we have improved on prevention and detection and treatment, but the way that we treat cancer today is not what we would ever dream of 50 years ago. i talked a little bit about immunotherapies. now we are able to take our own immune system and turn it on to treat cancers. approximately one third of our patients with cancer today are getting these types of

treatments. that means no hair loss, no nausea, no traditional side effects. they are getting therapies that do have rare in syria side effects but the vast majority of patients can do so well and are living so much longer because we were able to figure out the pioneering work of others to how to turn on our own immune system and turn on what we call t cells and allow them to attack the cancer. this was unheard of before. in addition, we have so much more technology advances. we can run a blood test now and be able to test the genes of a cancer and potentially think about could there be other therapies based on that signature. just a little blood sample. imagine what that means and where we are going. it is an exciting time. thank you for that question. host: from paul, a cancer patient, good morning.

paul in florida, hello. caller: sorry. host: it's ok. go ahead. caller: i was a fireman for a number of years and i came down with a blood cancer. can you explain to the community about how these blood cancers are, in my case, terminal guest: i'm so sorry ash terminal. guest: i'm so sorry -- terminal. guest: i'm so sorry to hear that. we truly don't understand what causes these cancers to develop for the vast majority of patients. sometimes about five to 10% of the time you may have inherited a gene from your family that caused the cancer but the vast majority of the time it is not from that, it is from some other reason that caused these cells to be damaged. i would say in an uncomfortable way, sometime the damage occurs over many years. it is not necessarily one environmental damage, per se,

but may be something that caused one gene to be damaged, and a couple years later, there is something else in the environment that caused something else to be damaged. so there are cancers that can develop anywhere in the body. blood cancers are when the cells of the blood system, white cells, red cells, platelets, can be damaged. mild fibrosis is one of those damages. we do not understand exactly why develops but it can lead to a lot of problems not only with quality but quantity. i think we are all trying to work hard on what we call -- the category in thinking about target approaches, looking at for example your cancer in the genes that were damaged that cause your cancer to see, is there any opportunity to use these targeted drugs which go after those genes and help you live longer and better? host: our guest is dr. diane eidy-lagunes, the host of cancer

straight talk from msk podcasts. before we get too far into it, how can they find your podcast? guest: wherever you listen to your podcast or online, spotify, apple, on the internet itself. host: from ohio, a survivor of cancer, linda, hi. caller: good morning. i'm not a survivor but my husband is. he is sitting in the other room. he has been on i think it is called mechanistic for malignant melanoma. this is the second time he has had it. what should i look for long-term side effects, he is finally off of it after being on it for a year and it is very frightening for the family, but what should he be looking at as far as side effects down the road, besides his twice a year skin checks? you did answer my question about finances because it just seems

we have been lucky to have excellent health insurance. this particular combination of drugs is $15,000 a year. if you get this and you have crappy insurance, they tell you tough, too bad, die and do it quickly. guest: i think in some ways your husband really illustrates the cancer advancements we have had. as i said before with our last caller, we have the ability to check for certain gene mutations or damage to certain genes that occur that leads to the development of the cancer. we believe in many cancers that damage is the driver, and if you can inhibit the damage or process from taking place with these medications, you can stop the cancer from growing and spreading. the combination of drugs

your husband is on his doing that. many malignant melanoma patients have this damage in a type of gene. in melanoma, these targeted approaches going right to the money, right to that gene driving the cancer, can help our patients live longer by stopping the cancer in its tracks. like you said, there is a huge financial cost on some of these therapies. there are, certainly for those with insurance, can be covered. there are programs with the company that can be done. nevertheless, it is a real problem our society has and we have to have these conversations more often. they are happening but we need to have it more often so our patients are not in the hole with these financial issues. i want to also say that, for you as a caregiver, you said beautifully that we are all worried about this disease. cancer does not only affect the patient. it is a family disease. we actually have an episode

on the caregiver because we recognize how the experience is for you. it takes its toll. we really want to focus not only on the patient but on the caregiver in that way. host: doctor, we have a president who has direct relation to someone losing the cancer. what has this administration done in terms of cancer and has it made any strides in improving cancer? guest: under president obama, we had the moonshot deal. it was run by president biden in part because he lost his son to a devastating type of brain cancer. i think there is no bigger advocate than president biden and really trying to advocate for our patients of today and tomorrow. he understands and has been to kettering and several cancer centers. he understands the importance of research, and that is our tool to get us there. the science will get us to where

we need to be to continue this war, if you will. i do think there is tremendous advocacy in the part of our national government right now to move this forward. host: we will take you back to 2016, vice president biden then talking about cancer five months after he lost his son. there is what he said back then. [video clip] >> i believe we need a moonshot in this country to cure cancer. it is personal. but i know we can do this. the president and i have already been working hard on increasing funding for research and development, because there are so many breakthroughs just on the horizon in science and medicine. the things that are just about to happen, and we can make them real with a absolute national commitment to end cancer as we know it today. i am going to spend the next 15 months in this office pushing as hard as i can to accomplish

this, because i know that there are democrats and republicans on the hill who share our passion to silence this deadly disease. if i could be anything, i would want it to be the president that ended cancer -- i would want to be the president that ended cancer because it is possible. host: where the government on this? guest: i think today we had a $5 billion budget for cancer. i think this is one that goes on the hill -- those on the hill believe in. we have gotten support and we would always love more because i believe we need to keep moving forward. the technology is there. the advancements are happening come alive. president biden said it, it is real. every day, i lose folks to this disease and it is devastating and does not get easier. for me, just i president biden, it is the force that keeps it going, the reason why i keep

going, because we cannot lose more patients like this. it is like it is there but it can happen -- can't happen fast enough. it absolutely requires the resources and funding. there has been less philanthropic funding during the covid pandemic to the national cancer society and other places, and that is so critical to our health in terms of finding these cures and doing the research that we need to do. as i said before, it is an all hands on deck approach and i do think the government supports -- we don't have a lot of government bipartisan support but in the world of cancer it is there there's an effort on capitol hill highlighted by senator marco rubio. the senator -- center for medicare could as soon as january and you're caught up to 50% funding for medicare reimbursements on radiation treatment such as proton beam therapy. if you could explain a little bit more, what could that do have those cuts happen? guest: so i think that proton

therapy is a really important example of how technology has advanced. some of our kids that get these terrible, devastating brain tumors can be cured of the disease but then they are left with major cognitive deficits. that is not good enough. things like proton therapy, which is so precise -- you can take the beam and it goes right to where the tumor is and have it scatter, which allows us to cure the patient, but with a lot less side effects. things i proton therapy really can help us, particularly in the pediatric population. what we need to be so precise as related to radiation therapies, and if there's an example again, it is not enough to cure the cancer, we want to improve the outcome of our patients. that is a public health perspective, something we all need to do. the long-term consequences of these therapies are not trivial, they are real. i think the government needs to look at these types of things. host: from orlando, florida, a cancer patient.

this is chris. hi. caller: hello. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yes. i am 39, just turned 39 in april of this year. i was diagnosed with stage iv adrenal cancer. one of the places it traveled to was my brain so i have a mass in my head but it originated from the adrenal gland, which i have been told is highly unusual. my doctors seem optimistic. i have gone through chemo and right now on dooming immunotherapy -- doing immunotherapy but the data is kind of grim. anything on the horizon so far -- what do we learn about adrenal cancer as far as treating it and things like that? it seems there's not a lot of information on it. guest: no there's not. ironically, that is the disease i take care of. there's probably about six to 800 patients a year that get the devastating disease -- 600 to

800 patients a year that get that devastating disease. my colleagues responsible for doing the clinical trial that brought the immunotherapy that you are on right now to the clinic. it is one of the day honors and privileges i had to work in a place like msk. i want to share a story that i will be having on an episode soon of a patient of mine to illustrate the magnitude of what the cancer research today can do . i had a 19-year-old named drew who was diagnosed with this devastating disease and i was taking care of him to prevent the cancer from coming back. unfortunately, a senior in college, the cancer did come back. he passed on valentine's day in his senior year before graduation. it was so devastating for me and his family, and we are so very close, even today. but i made it a point that we wanted to do better. so we started a trial based on survival events and other things and pitched it to one of

our pharmaceutical colleagues that really, based on our data in the lab, suggested this could be helpful. patient number two was a college senior named grace who had a stage iv adrenal cancer must assess his -- cancer metastasis to the lung. she is a few years out now with no evidence of disease to the trial. 25% of the patients on the trial responded, which is incredible. that means a 5% did not. we are there. -- 75% did not. we are there and need to keep moving. as an example of what we need to do, we did not have great therapies before that. we have traditional chemotherapies which work sometimes, but i think you are on the right therapies. i think you want to talk to your doctors about that but we wish you well. host: from michigan, bob on our line for others. good morning. caller: good morning. doctor, you are talking about a young person, and two you may be

five years seems like a long time. i'm looking at aarp, they spotlighted how well we are doing on cancer, the progress we are making. i must tell you, it is pretty unimpressive to me. particularly when you we -- when we use a five-year window. it is not as impressive as i had thought it would be for the tens of dozens of billions of dollars we spend looking at this disease and its various forms. wouldn't a 20 year window be more common sense? don't get me wrong, my wife died of geo glass dome of multiform -- geo blessed oma multiform. i'm not trying to be called but these statistics are not impressive for the amount of time and energy and money spent looking at these erratic cells. wouldn't a 20 year window be

better indicator of success than a five-year one? guest: it's a really great question. i think to clarify on why we use five years. first of all, i do not think any of us in the oncology community is good enough -- community think five years is good enough. that is why we are here to keep going. i think what is important is, generally speaking, a patient that has lived five years from the time of cancer, for example if they have no cancer at five years, for the vast majority of cancers, not all of them, but for the vast majority, that means you are cured. so we used five years as a guide to if the cancer has not come back at five years, it is a good chance you are cared. it is harder to maintain data for 20 years. most of the trials, for example, look at five years. but your point is incredibly important to make sure i emphasize for our listeners now that we are just not trying to get to five years, we are trying to get to cures. that is the benchmark we use for these trials.

again, the hope and expectation is the patients will live for decades, not just five years. host: how do other countries do as far as not only their treatment of cancers but survival rates and the like compared to the united states? guest: that's a great question. i thing there is a paradox here in our country. we have a lot of resources. we are funding a lot of the critical trials that lead to the advancement and lead to these fda approvals. as you said before, there is disparities in no question. so we need to do better. our life expectancy in general in cancer is a big part of that is lower than a lot of our european colleagues in other places in asia, etc.. i think we are trying our best to get there, trying to address the disparity issue. we probably do not want to go into today of benefits and

risks versus problems of nationalize cancer systems and wait times and other things that can happen, but i think what is critically important is the consistency of care in our country, that's where giving everybody an opportunity to get the best care possible. i think we have a ways to go to make that happen. host: would you say better in the united states, people are better educated about cancer causes, treatments then they were say five to 10 years ago? guest: in general, patients are absolutely better educated. they understand the importance of smoking cessation, eating better, and advisory -- avoiding environmental toxins. there is stuff out there that we don't know, but i do think we have disparities in care. that is not consistent across our country in being able to allow people to tap into the resources that they deserve to have. host: let's hear from carolyn in texas, a cancer survivor. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: well, how are you? caller: just fine, diane.

i am a 20 when you're cancer survivor and i heard the man said a window of 20. so far i am a 21 year survivor and i have known some people who have survived it 30 and 40 years. my mother-in-law was a cancer survivor and she died at 98. [laughter] guest: that is awesome. caller: there are a lot of people like me who are surviving it. i wanted to let some of your listeners know that are watching you that you have to really approach it, not just from a five-year standpoint window but you have to approach it -- i had a doctor that said you have to approach it from a five pronged point of view. you have to approach dealing with your cancer from a physical standpoint with the doctors and the people you work with, and from a spiritual standpoint from

mental stance, emotional standpoint. i forgot the fit one. -- fifth one. i had five relatives, when i first found out i had my cancer in 2000, august 1 of 2000, as i went along in getting my treatments, i had two sister-in-law's and two cousins who came down with the cancer at the same time. your mental state sometimes may determine your outcome, but we were all -- it was kind of like we were all in a race together. 20 years ago, some of them did not make the five-year window because of some of the decisions they made i guess with their doctors or whatever. host: i apologize, because we are running short on time, but we will thank you for the call. doctor, go ahead. guest: i do want to comment a little on the mental health

piece. some people -- the famous line, you don't beat cancer by your attitude, you beat it by the way we live. some folks have the best attitudes in the world and they still will pass up -- of their disease. i thing the mental health piece and part of it is important. we talk about that in one of the episodes. it is ok to be upset and devastated and then grateful and moving on and trying your best when you get these diagnoses. it can often have a lot of emotions even at the same time. i think it is a big part of what we need to address in the medical community on taking care of the patient when they are diagnosed with the cancer. i think it is also -- i do want for our listeners to hear that it is very unfair to say their attitude was not good and therefore there cancer grew. we really don't have any data to

suggest that attitude -- attitude helps for sure us live better but it is difficult to get there. host: our guest, a medical oncologist at sloan-kettering, thank you for coming and happy holidays. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for the program. another edition of washington journal comes your way 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these

television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> without the advances we have made didn't efficiency and renewables, for example, i think, certainly, our circumstances would be much more serious than they are today. at the same time, we have been entirely focused on that kind of approach to climate change for the last 20 years, and we've yet to see a single year in which there's been an absolute reduction in global carbon

emissions, which being in a recession, and other words, a circumstance in which the world slows down. >> sunday, on q&a, what would happen to the economy and environment of the world cut consumption but 5%? mckinnon argues that in his book the day the world stopped shopping, arguing that the way the world uses resources is unsustainable. on c-span's q hyundai. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the new c-span now app. ♪ host: it is the washington journal for december 4. most analysis of yesterday's job reports showed a mixed bag. 210,000 added in november.