low, they send to be cities where there's a lot of income segregation. the poor are not living in close proximity with the rich, for example. >> jeff, what was your take reading what we know of the study? >> i think it helps to explain what's happening more generally, which is a crisis at the bottom, of course soaring wealth at the top, and a real problem for america. in places with very low social and income mobility, you mentioned detroit in the opening, that's a place where the labor market is just disappearing. there aren't jobs. the school system is in deep crisis. some of the factors that raj has just indicated. we see that in a lot of parts of america. >> megan, would it be fair to look at this and say what this tells you is that there's places in america where there's significant public investment tend to do much better, good public education of some kind, good public transport of some kind, so that the poor can get to jobs. those seem to be the kind of things that are correlated with doing well. so, again, would it be fair to make a kind of poli

because people are saying fixed income is dead. it is not dead, is it? >> fixed income is not dead.f you look at financial management firms they are rolling out hybrid products. david: what does that mean? >> one of those wall street acronyms. you have a sleeve, fixed income product, bonds and you have equity products. the idea in a uncertain environment the portfolio manager at the top can move your money back and forth between the two. it's a great idea. that says i get a little equity return and i have my downside is limited by fixed income. this is where we touch wood and we've seen a lot of wall street products that haven't worked. this is a new version. i hope it works. tell you the truth my merrill broker put me into some of those. so you know, i'm a bibby boomer, you're absolutely right. my risk appetite isn't what it was say in 2006. cheryl: you know, that is almost a hedging strategy if you will. actually i have a similar strategy in my portfolio. i think i'm on the same page here. at the same time the big banks such as morgan stanley figured out the fee structure associat

those experiencing hardships such as homelessness, people with incomes below the threshold for filing federal tax returns which is about 9750 dollars per year, the incarcerated, those are the religious exemptions. >> my apologies, do you have copies of the slides for the committee. >> i'm sorry, i do not, i apologize. >> continue, please. >> anyone who is subject to the individual mandate and fails to show klein which will be done through their tax return, financial penalties will apply, the penalty in the first year is $95 which is low in acknowledgment of this new requirement but it creases to 695 dollars in 2016, it expands public insurance for low-income citizens through the medicate program, it creates the amazon.com of health insurance, it incentive employers to offer coverage, it makes health insurance more accessible and for all of these, i'll review the expanded options in brief. for the lowest income individuals, health reform expanded medicate which is called medi cal in california, prior to health reform, only certain low-income individuals were eligible for medical, prima

, upper incomes. spread in 20% academic achievement for reading , math, and anything else. what did we do? testing whichd on will give us a little bit. and fight andt fight for earned income tax credit. we ignored the minimum wage. we did not look at incomes. if we look at incomes, we look at it at the center pivot for just about anything that we want to make better in iowa. if we don't have good incomes in this state, we don't have good education. we don't have incomes, we don't have good environmental policy and funding. if we don't have good incomes, we can to infrastructure, we can't do parks, we can't do human services. what i am advocating is a program that i call world-class iowa in 10 years. we can get there. we can get from where we are in the bottom 10 in different categories of government service to the top 10le, and even the top. we can do it through benchmarks that you will create working in groups to create plans, to move up. education, environment, labor laws, income. we will move those

for the lowest income individuals, health reform expanded medicate which is called medi cal in california, prior to health reform, only certain low-income individuals were eligible for medical, primarily, children, seniors, and families with disabilities, they compromise a significant portion of the insured, health reform changes this beginning january 1, adults ages 18 to 64 with incomes between 0 and 138% of the federal po*rt level which is about 15 thousand 800 dollars for a single person will be eligible for medi cal, the current medi cal program that serves these people will be unchanged. those newly eligible will enroll into managed medi cal, it's important to note that eligibility does not equal enrollment, enrollment is not automatic, even today, about 1.3 million californians are already eligible for medi cal but have not enrolled, individuals will have to apply for medi cal which they can do at any time during the year. our exchange is called cover california, cover california is an online marketplace where individuals can purchase health insurance. individuals who have incomes

it hurts lower income. if you're in the upper middle class, if you're higher, it doesn't affect you at all. with high gas prices, lowest labor partipation rate since the 1980s and the economy stagnant, it hurts consumers significantly, yes. >> it's not just lower economy because we saw macy's, nordstroms, they have to fire their piano player or something, th is really hitting everyone. >> it's simple, right? you tax me more, there's less money in my paycheck. that's the bottom line. that means they're less disposable income for me to go to nordstrom's and buy a pair of shoes. instead what i have has to go to pay my bills. taxes hurt, bottom line. they'll continue raising them, which means this economy is not going to get better. >> steve, you buy that? >> nope, it's completely i will logical. our greatest economic pros sparety in history occurred in the '90s when we had exactly the same -- >> we had a tax bubble. >> -- as we have right now. no, throw out the '90s. the tech bubble didn't boost the economy. w

for low income population we have flexibility how we define low income. our recommendation to the board is we use 200% of the federal poverty level which is also consistent with how we define qualifications for our life line pass. that ends up being 31% of san francisco households meet that definition. we average between two and three people per household which is by that definition 31 to $38,000 so that just gives you a scale of the income we're talking about. for the analysis to date we have focused on using census data looking at the demographics of the routes that the neighborhoods they travel through and complemented with an on board survey and give information about who is using our service and one of the things we will be doing once that work is completed and doing the data collection and now doing data entry is see how closely the demographics of the ridership matches the demographics of the neighborhoods that the routes go through. i am really supportive of the cac's recommendation at the staff level we review the thresholds when we have this sur

income equality is widening. the cdc says average income for the nation grew 1%. is this a problem that any president can reverse? >> i think this is going to take a very long time to change because this has been a long time development. this trend is, i don't know, 30 years old. i wanted to speak to what austin said a moment ago, though. even though we can expect jobs and in connection with to rise as we emerge from the recession, wages right now are lower than they were. the worker in the middle is earning less per week than he or she was ten years ago. so i would argue that there is a cyclical factor that as we emerge from the recession, we should see an improvement. there is also a longer term phenomena that have been keeping wages down, and you can see this in all sorts of statistics. if you look at the wage share, what part of the national income goes to wages? that's at its lowest point since we started measuring this stuff in 1929. and by contrast, the share going to profits is at a record high again since 1929. >> the focus on raising wages for some of th

in terms of the income, you know, taiwan, in the patents, it was low-income and high-income in the world. so we can see hpv much more reduced. we can now decrease. we now can increase the generation because of the hpv vaccination. but his is still very common, even in china -- but it is still very common, even in china. stomach cancer and esophageal cancer, i think the low-income still remains a high incidence in those cancers. lung cancer is still very high. there are a lot of people in china smoking. so we see that in the line middle-income entries. but higher income countries, because they can't afford -- because they can afford better food and red meat, the colon cancer is very popular in taiwan. i think that is universal. >> for the final part of the program, we will get upfront and personal with you. looking at your your career, you certainly had a very distinguished career in the prevention, in the studying and researching and treatment of the disease cancer. and you are one of the founding members for the formosa cancer foundation. over the last 2-3 decades, what does the foundat

-- people who are low income. the maximum rent that i believe a person who receives section 8 can rent for is around 1850 roughly. i may be off by a little bit, but the average rent in san francisco as we all know, it's higher than $1850. people with -- that are on housing on section 8 public housing, when they do get assistant through section 8, often have to move out of the city in order to find housing. that means we're losing san francisco residents who want to live here but can't live here because there's no housing available. i also would like to remind everyone that if someone moves in to housing that's an accessible or physical access, that's a civil rights issue so i feel and i know we feel that the agents -- that it's important to address these issues. again i want to commend you for your work on this resolution and -- i hope the stakeholders revolve this issue and we look forward to this being the catalyst to make changes happen. >> thank you. any further comment? >> my name is dw johnson. i want to say

who owns real estate for income. wants to know if he should hang on to them or run for the hills, as he put it. >> i think it's very broad category but they a great part of -- part of a portfolio for income investors. office reets that office space in major u.s. cities and mortgage reets with private residential mortgages. they pay high but the share prices are volatile. investors need to have a long-term time and be diversified. >> let's turn to one of your recommendations. tell us about western asset high yield defined opportunity fund. that's a mouth full. >> this is a closed fund that pays a 9% dividend yield and trades at a discount to the asset value and with the increase in bond yields, bonds have been thrown by the wayside by a lot of investors and this now has low share price and is particularly attractive entry point, i think, for patient income oriented investors. >> do you look overseas at all? you can get a good dividend yield elsewhere, some bonds overseas paying a good income, as well? do you look ther

for high-income people, loss of income from a youngster that courage we did from high school and went to work is probably of little or no consequence. for a low-income family it is great. now if you take into account before i go on to the income if you take into account living costs, and if you include full tuition, then the cost of getting a four year degree from one of these schools is on the order of a quarter of a million dollars. but if one went to a public and the other things for the same, the cost is about 100,000. so to 50 versus 100. and here is probably the most interesting number. if a student went to a community college for two years then transferred to a public university for two years and lived at home and, although this would be tough to do, work pretty much full time it is a tough thing but a lot of people do it. then the total cost of a four year degree would be under $10,000 for four years. the point of all of this is just as if you were to ask is a house expensive without specifying what kind of house or is an automobile expensive without asking if you ask whether

because earnings is the biggest contribution to income. so if you're look at household income there are a couple of things that you need to be looking at. one is how many people are working in the household and what they are earning. and there we see that african americans, you know the typical household just isn't able to keep up. in part it's job opportunities and another has changes in the family composition. in terms of having the ability to have more than one worker. >> to have more income coming into the household. we're going to ask you to stand by both of you because we're going to continue to talk about equity, pay and what households can do to lift their own incomes. we'll look for your insight. we'll talk about the present day fight to raise the minimum wage. when we return we'll hear from fast food workers as they gear up for a fair fight. >> everyone's out here representing a purpose, to take care of our family, take care of our children and to get 7.35 raise up to 12.35 or 15. >> and now a snapshot of stories making headlines

that's maximum income. the president of the united states, with massive popular support. and when the republicans said, "no, we can't do that." they fought. and the compromise was a 94% top rate. compared to the 39%, and .6% that we have today. i mean, you can see there that that -- that was a lesson. that i believe the corporations and the rich in america have learned. they saw that they were forced between two choices. a real revolutionary possibility, or a compromise. they voted for the compromise. they gave the mass of people real support, far better than anything they're getting now. and they did that because politics was a real possibility to undo their economic system. after the war, i think our history is the history of a destruction of the communist and socialist parties first and foremost, and of the labor movement shortly thereafter. so that we now have a crisis without the mechanism of pressure from below. and that may look to those on top as an advantage because they don't have that problem. they don't have a cio. they don't have socialists and communists, th

overall incomes are basically flat.now, we do need to get incomes up for consumer spending to come back to anything lie normal levels. but if the growth rate is as slow as it's been, it's hard to see substantial improvement. >> let's look at the numbers. the cbo says average income for the top income was 1%, more than triple, could this be a permanent thing that know president, not the one before him or after him can reverse? >> well, i think this is going to take a long time to change. i wanted to speak to what austan said a moment ago. even though we can expect jobs and incomes to rise, wages are lower than they were. i would argue that it's a cyclical factor. we should see improvement but there's a phenomenon nonthat's been keeping wages down and you can see this in all sorts of statistics. if you look at the wage share, i mean what part of the national income goes to wages. that's at this lowest point since we started measuring the stuff in 1929. and by contrasting the shares going to profits is at a record high, ag

>> 80% of our clients have incomes of $30,000 or less. about 70% have incomes of $20,000 or less.the vast majority are on ssi or s.d sdi for me affordability is the definition of section eight where somebody pays 1/3 of their income. it's hard enough for people to live even if won the lottery and got a section eight and as we have seen in the city if they win the lottery and literally got a section eight it's difficult to find a landlord that will take that section eight. that was highlighted when bevan dufty was working on it and got hundred vouchers for vets and able to find housing for like four of them, so that is a struggle because the affordability crisis in san francisco is so out of control right now. >> right. and finally do you know -- do you have any idea how many clients ultimately end up homeless? i know it's a difficult question. i think it's an important thing for us to look at. how many clients are ending up homeless in all of our agencies? >> i don't have statistics on that. >> okay. >> we know that some of the clients do lose. many of our clients in addition to t

housing is not affordable and it's $800 and your income is 932 a month. affordable housing when you 8910 room and basically paying $10 per square foot plus. that's not affordable housing but regardless it's the housing that is available for a chunk of people in san francisco, and our goals are to improve that housing and to build community within those communities of people. we have been doing a lot of work in the mission sro collaborative, in all of the neighborhoods where the collaboratives work, and there are basically two things happen. we are seeing increase need that we need to respond to and we're seeing our funding stay the same so we need to make hard choices. in the past when we had the tobacco free money and other sources we were able to work on the city's 311 system, setting up a complaint system and tenants could place complaints with the city and this we cannot do without additional funding. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is jeb and i'm the outreach coordinator at the woman's cl

>> i think they should stick with the income focus. if they need to load up on income, this is probably a good time to do so. and again, as long as they have a longer term time horizon and keep a well-diversified portfolio, they will be fine. the markets will have flows. we've seen it in the past. we'll see it probably in the next six month ps wis with the going on, the things you described in the program. income is an important participant to everyone's portfolio. >> lots of good advice. thank you so much, chris. have a great weekend. >> thanks, bill, thanks susie, you, too. >>> finally tonight, something i'm familiar with, the company that makes jack daniels whisky is having a hard time keeping up with customer demand. so they are building a brand-new 100-million dollar distillery at the lynch burg, tennessee factory looking to increase production of the best selling whisky by as much as 20%. get this, it's the first time since prohibition that the liquor giant has built a new digitalry from scratch. >> i wonder why -- i wonder why t

good news, only 43% of americans are not paying federal income taxes. we can get this down to neil: here's the good news on tas, percentage of americans not paying them goi down. here's the bad news. it is 43%. is it a little weird when we start looking this thing up hashtag just because a number of americans not paying federal income tax is not 47%, mitt romney would be proud it is 43%? they used to be more than a trillion dollars is progress? what a load of clash, which is what we're doing on this subject. adam leschinsky says it is an improvement. >> we're looking at this seeing more people are paying federal income taxes because you can't have more people not paying for the benefits we get from the federal government. poor people understand more of what their game is going towards and the overspending problem but the bottom line is the matter how may are paying federal income tax you can confiscate all the income everybody in this country and you still are not paying off the debt or trillions of dollars in liabilities and you will not make a differe

wwe're talking about federal income tax so people pay all sorts of taxes.l: apples to apples it was in the '20s. now that is progress from where we were recently, but not from where we were not so recently. >> one thing katie said, there was no discussion of confiscating all of everybody's income because if we did it would have an impact on the deficit and the federal debt. neil: you are not advocating confiscating peoples income. >> i am not advocating it, nor is anybody else. >> the point of that comparison was to say no matter how much money you take from people you can't pay off this debt. whether it is 47% or 43% paying federal income taxes doesn't matter because we have a spending problem. neil: i do think there is something to be said about everybody getting skin in the game. are we closer to that, or will we be? >> we are clearly closer to it. there are poor people, people who don't make enough money by the way we have things structured now to pay income tax. i wouldn't disagree with you if it was in the 20%, that is where we should be aiming for ag