connell: we got to wrap it here at the top of the hour, thanks so much, jonathan, hadley and todd first meeting of this group melissa: that's one of the big problems anyway that does it for us. connell: bulls & bears starts right now. david: breaking news from the white house, president trump just meeting with some of the biggest business leaders in america, including apple ceo tim cook, all focusing on the future of the american workforce. hi, everybody this is bulls & bears, we're so glad you could make it today i'm david asman joining me we have susan li, jack howe, and scott martin. president trump: we have companies coming into this country at a record pace and really, at a pace that nobody thought possible, because nobody thought you'd ever see these particular companies again. many of them are coming back. they want to be where the action is. they're coming back. they left years ago, i used to talk about it as a civilian but they left years ago and now

they're coming back and in numbers that nobody believes so we're going to let a lot of people come in because we need workers we have to have workers unemployment and 3.7, 3.6 probably, these are low numbers, and in one way i love it but in another way i don't want to make it hard for you to get those companies rolling with really great people, because without the great people it doesn't work all of these wonderful things we talked about are nice but you need as you discussed, you need the people, and you need really good people and we have great people. david: great people that have to have the right skills. now president trump was not usually known for pro- immigration policies, assur ing the ceo's that he's going to help them get more folks into the country, who can work for them, so gang, what do you make of this? >> yeah, david ursino know this is pretty interesting, it's a little bit like you said and maybe a little turn on the message but i think a good one. the economy, the great economies that we've seen around the globe

especially ours benefit from what? free-trade. free exchange of good and services, and free employment movement right so the ability for workers to go here and far to find jobs and so of course, given that we do have several million jobs that are unfilled and that could be obviously based on a skills gap too that exists, if you can get policies in place, if you can get employers working with employees to bring people over here that sell some of these jobs, i think that's a great start to getting this economy really fired up. >> the best economy in 15 years , and the u.s. is really going through problems as you heard from the panel there at the white house. it's not a lack of investment capital that they have access to it's human capital that they're looking for, so why not let more people into the border so you can fill that 1 million jobs gap for the people with the right skills, highly educated. >> well that is one of the huge issues which our contemporary economy which is you have people

unable to find the skilled workers, and you have a lot of people who are still not in the labor force so you're totally right. it's the headline unemployment rate in 15 years the labor force participation rate is still way below what it was and that's a lot of people are retired but also don't have the skills that are matching. >> but people with the right skills through the borders, and the right strategy. >> i'm really glad to hear that there is pro-immigration. >> you know, over the long run if we don't have immigration in this country, we shrink and go broke, period. we need immigration and i'll tell you something else. this president obviously wants a wall, and he hasn't had a lot of success getting it extended. the path to getting more of a wall is this. it's saying good things about immigration, because democrats will go for a wall so long as it doesn't represent a monument to bigotry saying less hateful things about our friends from down south and better things about immigration. david: well and again his message is all he's been

formation reform that he wants to be a part of it of course the democrats won't join him on just about anything, but that he wants an immigration system built on the qualities of the immigrants who come into the united states. not this crazy lottery system. a lottery is something you have a scratch off and you play it at your local pharmacy. we should do what the canadians do to much success over there and focus on the talents that people have, and those talents by the way could be a phd in technology but it could also be brick laying, right? >> i agree, david and i think too one thing we have to think about too, guys with the visa system we have now we have a lot of kids that come over from foreign countries, get studied here and then leave again, so they go back to hair home countries and work and develop great things there so another thing to work on is once folks come here for the education system from say foreign countries, keeping them here in the country and working is another thing so that we don't send them back to their home countries. >> and look that has been a

real complaint particularly of silicon valley and the tech industry which is tightening up of the rules for these higher visas which is become a much more complicated process. yes it was one that was also abused let's give a nod to that but you know it's something that we actually have gone backwards on and not forward over the past few years. >> but those visas they get taken up in the first one month, they're available. >> you could extend it. >> you would hope so because actually the trend has been actually to contract the number of visas they dole out so is this a nod to silicon valley and to high-tech workers coming back here? david: one of the reasons that it also gets used up so quick is because there's so many other immigrants that have been coming into the country. people who don't necessarily have the skillset that we need. i mean, very personal story, i happen to have a sister-in-law whose got she's got an mba, a cpa, she speaks perfect english she's been trying to get a green card for more than 10 years. there's no reason why a person like that shouldn't be able to

be fast-tracked. >> i think there's nothing wrong with developments and preferences, what do we want? fiscally we should want young working people and as long as we're getting that it doesn't matter if they're highly skilled or the lower skilled jobs are fine too but if you are really concerned about let's say illegal immigration here in the u.s. , the best thing you could do is get serious about letting more people in because when you do that, you don't have people who come here illegally get trapped, can't go home because they don't want to have to make that trip over again. you have people come and go with the work. >> and jobs also increases productivity as well that filter s through into the economy , also increases tax coffers as well, and then don't forget companies invest billions of dollars which is what the president is looking for. >> so we're having a little bit of a pro-immigration discussion here which i totally agree that if you want to be able to pay look play by the rules this is a country that welcomes people, much more tractionable much more convincing to be able to say look this is a country that is as we all know built on immigrants and it is still a

place that people want to come that has immense opportunity. you have to nurture that and put out your shingle and say we're still open for that even while we're saying look we want it to be a process and be fair. david: by the way there's another possibility and jack you hinted at it before we had something called the broceros program for 20 years in united states in the 1940s we had a lot of people going off to war and a labor shortage in the united states and they opened up a guest worker program, they called it broceros for brothers and we had millions of people over the next 20 years that came here to work, went back home to mexico, came back, went back home it wasn't exactly a green card it was something short of that but it was close. what's the possibility we could get back into that? by the way the people that killed it were the unions of the united states who didn't like the fact that mexican workers were coming in getting a lower salary but could it work now what do you think? >> i would even say it could work now and i'd take it one step further. if you really want to ensure there is a discussion that goes

on about what are the fiscal consequences of these people who come here? i think there are largely positive over a couple of generations, but if you really want to do something about the fiscal situation, hit the employers up for a little tax. you want to bring in workers for overseas a little money in the coffers for those workers you bring in and we all make out. >> you don't want to go so far as the buy a green card program of the invest in the united states which has helped fund a lot of projects but only for the extremely wealthy. but the idea is come here for an education, that gives you, you spent a lot of money on education for four years and you get avis afore four years if you find a job there's a lot you could do to keep them here. david: by the way there's another aspect to what we just saw which was the most obvious one i mentioned in the introduction. the guy sitting next to the president was tim cook. tim cook is not a conservative republican. i don't know that for a fact. i haven't seen his voting card but i'm willing to bet a year's salary that he is not a

conservative republican nevertheless he was sitting next to another businessman, donald trump and it leads one to wonder whether anybody, any of the candidates in the democratic party maybe with the exception of bloomberg who pulled himself out yesterday has that kind of business savviness that would allow two people with such differing views on policy and most things politically to get along, and there was another, a business woman who spoke to why the president is so appreciated by the business community. let's play that tape. >> thanks to you and congress you gave us the largest tax cut in history for america's small business and the small business economy has been on fire. david: so is that the reason why he's got the support from the business community? even people who might not agree with him? >> i would think so, david and i mean if you look at the position with him next to tim cook i believe he even called his friend a couple times. that was just great kind of theatre for exactly what you were just talking about. you were talking about a reach that this president has to the small business community, to

silicon valley, to big industrial companies all around that table, we had this talk and this method and theme of this is so much better of an environment today than it was say two or four years ago and so if he continues to really base on that kind of thing you're going to see job market in this country, greater than it is, the job market gets even better and it gets more skill. david: last word from scott. well could the old tax breaks on mortgages, college tuition, the medical bills be brought back in time for this year's tax bill? the renewed push to extend deductions on these and a lot of other things led by senate finance committee chairman chuck grassley, senator grassley is going to be here, next.

so with xfinity mobile

i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers and save hundreds of dollars a year.

are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars. do you guys sell, other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. get $250 back when you pre-order a new samsung galaxy. click, call, or visit a store today. david: lawmakers on both sides agreeing on something joining

forces to introduce a new bill that would retroactively renew more than 30 expired tax breaks, deductions for mortgages, college tuition, medical expenses, debt forgiveness on foreclosures they're on the list , republican chairman of the senate finance committee chuck grassley is leading the charge and he joins us now. senator grassley always a pleasure. you know i love you to death but at the same time i want to pick a bone with you on this because one of the purposes of the new tax law was to simplify the tax code and one way you do that is by getting rid of a lot of these breaks. you want to bring them back. isn't that going backwards? >> not at all. let me explain to you that first of all, in the tax bill of previous tax bill, we did away with at one-time, we had about 50 some of these, some of them were done away with and some were made permanent law like the research and development tax credit that all the business likes and you would support that

, so what we're talking about is these tax policies have been around for a long time, some of them need to be done away with, some of them need to be extended, for a short period of time, and then go away , and some of them need to be made permanent law, so you're talking about some 30 is you're talking about so i won't go into the details of which ones fall into which category but you're talking about extending for 201d ers like we have done periodically over a period of maybe 20 years, so you're talking about keeping existing tax policy. >> senator it's zachary cara bell, so we're sitting in a studio in new york city a lot of us are from this area of the country is there any discussion i probably know the answer to this but i'd like it to be different, of revisiting the tax exemption z and the degree to which the tax bill in view of

many people in this part of the country put an undue burden on these states versus others? >> well there is in the democrat ways and means committee there is one time if the president really meant it that he said he was willing to look at it. in my committee, we aren't willing to look at it, because we're always charged by the other party, with so much of this tax bill, which i think is an intellectually dishonest argument that they make it anyway that benefited the 1% of the richest people in the country. okay, let's suppose we change salt, like they want to, or like you want to. then 60% of that benefits going to go to the top 1%, so isn't this group of people talking out of both sides of their mouth? >> senator hi, these i'm sure they would be welcome but we're sitting here it's march 6 most people get tax refunds and

people who get tax refunds are in a hurry to file their taxes so they file them in february so you have a lot of people who already filed that paperwork has to go back to the irs and it increases cost what with kevin brady do to avoid having this many people redo their taxes to get that extra cash? >> well you're talking about if we pass these extenders and don't do it in time and for some people we haven't done it in time probably they will have to file amended forms if they benefit from it and if you're a small business person, or a larger business person, to some extent you'll benefit from some of this stuff even families like with the college tuition or people that have medical expenses over 7.5% of their income they're going to benefit by it, but the thing is, we have this stuff ready to go in december, we had a bipartisan agreement in the united states senate, but the house and senate democrats didn't want to go along because they want to use this stuff to bargain some

changes in the december 2017 tax bill and we're not about to barge ignition that's been such a good thing for the country, increasing our gdp to 3%, getting more people working, all this sort of stuff that's so good about the way we measure our economy today. >> well senator i want to change gears and talk about pharmaceutical and drug pricing because we had that senate hearing with pharma ceo's last weekend it looks like there's been some success with eli lilly after receiving a letter from the senate finance committee asking why their insulin drugs are so high and now the ceo of eli lilly says they're going to cut the cost of this drug in half. what about drug pricing in america? i mean, why is it so much higher here, than it is in the rest of the world and are we seeing progress? >> because we do so much of the research and because we let our drug companies make really low

cost stuff to be delivered in france and europe and england et cetera. they don't make much of a profit there but they sell great quantities of it, and so in europe they don't pay for our research, and we ought to be making them pay for our research , but if that can't be done, then we got to deal with what we have. we have high drug prices, why? because there's so much secrecy. there's middle people called pharmacy benefit managers that rake a little bit off about $170 billion, so why do we have a list price up here? we have the rebate come in of about $170 billion and then we have a price down here, why isn't the consumer paying this price down here benefit from the rebate and that's our goal to make sure that the customer benefits but also for me as being chairman of the finance committee jurisdiction over medicare and medicaid we're going to try and save the

taxpayers some money as well. >> senator grassley it's scott martin in chicago. sticking on the drug issue you mentioned with the pbm's getting involved let's talk about generics too isn't that another way we can lessen a little bit of the rules if some of these pharma companies on the rules against generics or patents and things like that when it comes to getting generics down in the market so we can attack some of these pharma companies that have seen the market and therefore the pricing power that hurts so many americans? >> music to my ears. two bills i have in. i won't explain them unless you want me to but one with klobucha r of minnesota to do away with the pay for delay that keeps generics off the market a little longer and number two, to make sure the other one is with lahey, goes by the acronym creates that we got out of committee last year, and some of these pharmaceuticals say they're going to do what we want if we can get samples from those companies that the have gone through the research we can get

generics on the markets a lot faster so those two bills will accomplish what you want to accomplish. david: senator very quickly i don't often pay attention, no offense, to these long speeches on the senate floor, but you made one today that i found to be very useful and also very funny at times. you made a statement about the green new deal, and we should mention by the way, you are not at all opposed to green energy. you've been the pioneer of a lot of windmill bills and that sort of stuff for clean energy. >> sure. david: but the green new deal is a little more than just about clean energy isn't it? >> sure, it's having the government decision-making dominate our economy, giving regulators more power to make sure you refurbish every house so it's completely energy efficient according to what some government says, we're going to do away with cows and agriculture which means you're doing away with the diets of

people of this country that like meat, a whole bunch of silly things that does not meet the common sense of the midwest where i come from, but you can understand why this comes out of washington, because washington is an island surrounded by reality. >> [laughter] that's a great place to leave it senator grassley always a pleasure please come back and see us again soon okay? >> you ask me i'll be here. david: we'll ask you you can count on it. so wall street gains have grown since the financial price us and so has pay which has regulators considering limits once again, but should the government be involved at all?

david: efforts to restrict wall street pay are back on the agenda the wall street journal says banking regulators are discussing reviving a proposal that would require big banks to defer compensation for executive

s and take back more of their bonuses if losses pileup at the end of the year for the firm, so should the government decide to pay an executive or is that up to the stockholders gang what do we think? >> david, you know, let me think. let's get the government involved into our salaries, our bonuses, our 401 (k), everything look, this is a hard no for me from that standpoint of that i still believe that these companies, yes, in some cases, have more boards than not and certainly, maybe don't have the best allegiance to their shareholders but still have the operations on their own in the sense that they don't need the government in their business telling them how to pay people but the reality is this, the free markets will eventually determine what fair pay is and you'll start seeing shareholders get upset you'll start seeing boards rally against these executives that are over paid because of the performance of the company that's how you take care of overpaid executives.

>> i am forced to agree. david: forced, [laughter] >> what is the downside here if government does not get involved in ceo's make too much money? i think what republicans are thinking here if we get on top of this and come up with something now it'll be better than whatever the democrats might come up with should they take control at some point in the future and i think that's a pretty good line of thinking it's just not one of those things that keep me up at night. >> i don't know, scott, i would say that the free market may not do such a good job in either real or human time, in making that adjustment, and while it is absolutely true that governments should not be stepping in and doing this the banks themselves on the half of long term shareholder value should recognize that they do have this thing called a social license to operate meaning you need some degree of buy-in publicly to do what you're going to do. they would have been much better off recognizing not just the optics of egregious overpayment

in a time of crisis but to the degree which they lose the confidence of the customers who are looking to online, looking to alternate solutions that may adjust it in time but i think they should do a better job thinking about the consequences themselves. >> what i'll tell you, go ahead , i'll let you answer quickly. >> yeah, it's because here is the thing though, in some cases, like at wells fargo he got run out of there and of course he tried to attack the golden parachutes setup many years prior to the financial crisis as far as comp so you're right to some degree that maybe the free market is going to be or even the shareholders are going to be late to the game, but it's better than the government just coming in saying okay, sweeping we've got to cut the top level executive pay by 20%, because it's over some random number that they disagree with. >> well the last proposal on the table from the fdic is not about cutting pay. you know i know jamie dimon made $31 million last year, first time to cross 30 million since 2008 but what they talk about is

longer deferment so instead of the three years that is the industry norm they're talking about four years deferment in bonus and also a seven year clawback period that won't necessarily cap jamie dimon from making another $30 million or the rest making $20 million, but they're trying to extend the period where they can take money back and i don't think that necessarily caps a company's profitability. >> by the way what about professional sports players, or musicians, or things you know? it's so targeted to a group that not many people are willing to stand up for. i just worry about it expanding but i must say one thing and i don't know, scott if you'd agree on this very quickly, but buddy boards a lot of times it's not the stockholders in general, the ceo will pick all of his buddies , put them on a board and guarantee he gets a high income. maybe we could change that a little bit right? >> yeah, i mean that was a big problem of the 2000s that eventually got i think eradicat ed to a good degree but you make a good point about the baseball players, bryce harper's

deal is ridiculous and he doesn't do anything except a couple base hits. >> there is the 30 million the ceo's or bryce harper? david: everybody deserves whatever they can get. >> whatever they're willing to be paid. david: we have to take a hard turn because we have very sad breaking news, jeopardy host alex trebek just making a startling announcement about this health posting a video online just moments ago, play the tape. >> this week, i was diagnosed with stage iv pancreatic cancer. now normally, the prognosis for this is not very encouraging, but i'm going to fight this and i'm going to keep working and with the love and support of my family and friends, and with the health of your prayers also i plan to beat the low survival rate statistics for this disease truth told, i have to, because under the terms of my contract, i have to host jeopardy for three more years.

so help me. keep the faith, and we'll win. we'll get it done.

david: facebook ceo mark zuckerberg announcing major plans to shift the social networking site into a privacy- focused social network ing platform. zuckerberg saying "frankly, we don't currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services and we've historically focused on tools for more open sharing, but we've repeatedly shown that we can evolve to build the services that people really want including in-private messaging and stories" let's bring in the author of the education of an unlikely actress, in a fox business exclusive, so roger, there's a contradiction here. people love social networking because it gives you the illusion that you have hundreds if not thousands of friends but if you limit that down to a private audience, doesn't that takeaway the lure of social

networking? >> i think what he's trying to do here is actually really really important but also incredibly hard to do and we have to wait and see what the actual product looks like when he's done because this is such a large scale business. the truth of the matter is that privacy matters intensely, but that's not what the real underlying problem is. facebook is in the business of surveillance, they gather a lot of data, they make behavioral predictions and then they use their artificial intelligence to point you in directions to make those. david: based on huge pools of people. >> and huge pools of data much coming from outside the site where they buy your credit card information from your credit card processing company, they buy your location from your cellular company and so they are not alone in doing this. google does this, amazon does this to a degree, microsoft does some of this and so that business model is where the problem is, from facebook's point of view they have such a p r disaster that if they get any pr bump from this that's good for the shareholders that's good

for the stock, but if you're a user of the product you're waiting to see the final analysis. >> would you say that zuckerberg's hand was forced here? is he really a believer in privacy end-to-end encryption and private sharing instead of public sharing? >> well to be clear i think being in favor of end-to-end encryption is politically speaking a no-brainer for him. everybody is basically their biggest messaging platform which is what's app was already there so i don't think he has a problem with that. i think the notion of reducing sharing would be running directly contrary to his historical values but they are in a very difficult place pr wise. >> but back on your point a lot of us have been saying for years there's gambling these businesses are built on the monetization of user data in an entire echosystem simply allowing users to change their privacy settings which is knee facing forward to my community as you said, doesn't alter that underlying business model at all , and i just wonder, and i am being a bit cynical here whether

or not this is literally a bit of window dressing that will allow for that business model to continue unchecked. >> i am completely with you. i think that the business model is really about surveillance, really about tracking people, everywhere they go, and then making predictions, and selling that. this will not directly address that. it will reduce some of the pools of data they get to work from but i would bet you anything that they do not think those are the most valuable pools going forward. >> we have fit so many people around the old bulls & bears table i feel like we've got our own social network here. i just want to put some numbers on this pr problem that you talk about because there's a poll out this morning from axios, and they poll companies on image 100 companies. facebook fell 43 places to number 94 out of 100 companies and by the way microsoft is quietly snuck up all the way to nine so the under dog and people love them and facebook is a company people love to hate right now. >> i think they like microsoft

because the stock does really well too but in fairness on the issues that i'm worried about we were just talking a moment ago microsoft is a player in that too because they have linkedin and bing, and with those things they are going to be in the behavioral prediction business because it's completely in their interest to be there as well and ai. they can force the functions. >> scott, come on over. this side of the table. >> yeah you guys are leaving me out of this great social network roger thanks for coming on by the way because it's a great point though, jack. we're all getting z ucked. we love it isn't that the funny thing guys if you look at the last quarterly report out of facebook, their mau's daily active users all those numbers were well ahead of expectations because it doesn't seem like anybody gives a care about what they're doing with their privacy >> i'm going to pushback on that ever so slightly, because the numbers in the fourth quarter are based on facebook is still the best advertising platform on earth, right? you want to do micro targeting or rent a specific demographic

there's literally no better place to go on earth. i have a book i'm targeting at people who use facebook and instagram. i'm going to do my advertising on facebook and instagram. what happened in the fourth quarter though is they loaded a lot more ads in your feed, i don't know if you've noticed this but in my case roughly every fifth or sixth post is an ad now. i mean how deep do they go before it's classified? there's a limit to how many more ads they can load in there and fourth quarter is seasonally strong it's the best platform and they probably doubled the ad load. you're going to get a record. david: so can you do what z uck says he wants to do, and still have advertising? i mean with all often recognition and the privacy and still give advertisers access to all his data? >> to be clear, the question i want to raise is i think there's some kinds of data that should be off limits. i don't think it should be legitimate for credit card processors to sell the data about our financial transactions to anybody who wants to buy them

we should have some say in that. it shouldn't be legal for the companies to sell our location data to anybody who wants to buy it. it shouldn't be legal for any healthcare app to sell your personal healthcare data. that's just wrong. it shouldn't be legal to even collect data on kids. >> so quick, hopefully eliminating a question because i don't know the answer to this we're about a year into the european data research on pr, are we, is there any way to tell whether that's actually impacted negatively the business model of any of this? >> it has not and the reason it has not is the global data protection regulation which is the name of the european law is really about the data you put into the system, the real value is on the stuff that they collect elsewhere, so it's about the metadata which is the data about what you're doing at the time you're doing transactions and the thins that give you the behavioral indications that's where the real value is that's not covered. the california law, which does a similar thing to global data protection regulation, same thing. >> the thing about value is you

buy facebook? >> i don't think i'm the right person. >> oh, come on, should i buy then? david: pool our resources here, bulls & bears. roger you're the best thank you very much. >> what an honor to be here. david: welcome back. >> be part of the panel. >> let me know when i can do that. david: the name of the book is z ucked, the unlikely education. congratulations, thanks for being here come again. >> will do. david: the italian government launching a basic income program , it's the same kind that's failed everywhere we'll go live with milan with more on that coming up next.

comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity. to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. with who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. i love the custom ink design lab because it's really easy to use.

they have customer service that you can reach anytime. t-shirts help us immediately get a sense of who we are as a group. from the moment clients walk in, they're able to feel like part of the family. - [spokesman] custom ink has hundreds of products for your business and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today

david: well italy's populous government now keeping a controversial election promise by guaranteeing all residents a basic income. we've heard that before fox news correspondent amy kellogg joining us now from milan with more on that hi, amy. >> hi, david, well this promise of a citizen's income may, in fact, have been what propelled the protest five-star movement part of the populous government you're talking about to garner the most votes in the election leaving some people, david, to accuse them of actually buying votes but other people say that the move was needed in a country that's very high unemployment,

struggling with an inflexible labor market and the deal is that each italian resident gets $882 a month, they're entitled to that so if you don't make that much you get popped up to that amount and if you have no job at all you get the full amount. the money gets loaded each month on to a card like this, recipients need to spend it by the end of the month or else it dries up, the point here being to spread the wealth into the economy and not horde it. the government hopes this will boost consumption which is lagging another feature of the plan is the creation of an army of so-called navigators, who will help benefit recipients actually move into a decent job, but critics think it's going to be hard to get people off the benefit once they're on it there is a three strikes you're out policy so if you're offered two jobs and you reject them the third time you're kicked off the program, of course also david, there's a lot of concern about people with off the books employment which is not uncommon here taking advantage of the situation, there will be, however, a penalty of jail time for that if caught.

david? >> amy that was a great report thanks for that insight. i do like the fact they are going to try to police it as such good luck, finding out whose doing things kind of on the side but i'll tell you one thing that's interesting, you mention it, it's the fact that italy's employment situation it's so much different than say the united states as if we were to bring that here. i mean chicago, illinois where i am has talked about doing universal basic income and i'll tell you guys there's nothing more than hurts upward movement, it takes away motivation from people especially when it comes to work then giving them a basic income saying here you go for doing nothing. >> the only thing that strikes me as a good idea here is that they have to spend the money, so you get some stimulus but i just can't get my head around the math here. i mean if another company, another country in italy's financial position tried to do this you'd risk runaway inflation they're not going to get that because they are back stopped by german economic strength the germans cannot love this idea. it just seems like it's going to

be so expensive. >> in defense of these things part of why they have some traction is because the amount of money for instance the united states spends between local and federal in means testing and the bureaucracy of the distribution of our safety net is massive, so if you actually did have a program that eliminated a lot of the distribution bureaucracy you could in fact accomplish some of the same ends and save some money, so there is -- >> i don't think that ever goes away. >> well the point of the universal income is saying look instead of doing massive bureaucratic studying and does this person qualify or not qualify you simply say here is a check. >> no! you have to be able to afford it first, italy is in recession, it's expected to shrink at the fastest rate in six years, they can't afford it, isn't that the basis of economics 101? >> and amy, you bring up a great point, that i've heard that 40% as much as 40% of the

italian economy is underground. they love to do things in the black market. they've been doing it that way for hundreds of years maybe even thousands, so how do they expect to collector deal with the black market economy when it's so big? >> yeah, i don't think that anyone expects that it's going to be dealt with. that is the problem and that is why so many people are quite skeptical of all of this because if you're not on the records you can say anything, and it's not certain, depending on how desperate someone's situation is that they would be deterred by this threat of jail time. i think we're going to have to see what happens. also there's community service attached to this and people are speculating there will be some creative ideas about community service that people are going to be forced to perform, david. david: you know, that is what the italians are wonderfully creative and they will think of all kinds of ways to play with this system amy thank you so much have a wonderful time in italy great to see you. meanwhile senator bernie sanders putting the squeeze on amazon to raise the minimum wage, but the result wasn't that good.

should bernie apologize, detail, coming next. all money managers might seem the same, but some give their clients cookie cutter portfolios. fisher investments tailors portfolios to your goals and needs. some only call when they have something to sell. fisher calls regularly so you stay informed. and while some advisors are happy to earn commissions whether you do well or not. fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,...

..

(cash register ringing) to find you a great price, and the hotel you want, so you don't end up overpaying for your room. no offense. find the right hotel room for the right price.

♪ hoo! read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do. tripadvisor. david: last year jeff bezos said he would be instituting a $15 an hour minimum raise. now the raise has gone into effect. while raises have increased, hours for employees have decreased. should senator sanders be on the receiving backlash end now? >> i think it should be amazon. whole foods said they weren't going up to $14 an hour. you were getting a 1 or $2 if you were a supervisor. some of them have gone from 30

hours a week to a 28-hour week. when money shifts this way, the hours shift the other way. >> minimum wages have been mandated by the federal government for some time. there is a principle in place that companies should pay people a living wage relative to the poverty level. >> there is an overreach here. i don't know how we can blame amazon in this case for making a fair business decision for what's put on them by the regulatory environment, by foxes for locals. >> bernie sanders is a politician. i don't believe he's part of the regulatory body. >> illinois' new governor is doing $15 minimum wage is almost

a double by 2025. plus additional regulations they will put on businesses to open up and operate. you are adding to businesses that make them make decisions like this that hurt american workers because they need to save money. >> for most of of americans we have had a much higher minimum wage adjusted for inflation. you can go a little bit higher than $7.25 for more than 10 years now and you will be just fine. david: there are dozens of studies from liberal and conservative economists showing when there is an increase in minimum wage, the first people hurt are the most of vulnerable. the young minority groups who see this as a step up, they are

stuck without a job. >> we have had that history. we pay these people too little and it goes on federal benefits. >> illegal immigration is simply spiraling out of control and threatening public receive day and national security. we face a real serious and sustained crisis at our borders. tens of thousands of illegal aliens are arriving at our doorstep every month. it's not a manufactured crisis, this is truly an emergency. liz: that's homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen defending president trump's national knowledge. but that's