doom and gloom. i think there are some leading-edge opportunity and we should push really hard across government to incense as much innovation in those areas as possible to create that environment i talked about. >> i really thought this was a great discussion to end on. the first question is, we talked a lot about coordination and collaboration between federal agencies in different state federal and local level in between the private and public sector like this discussion because i've gotten into some of the community driven capacity. i wondered if you could discuss some other ways in which we can engage community leadership on food and nutrition and/or other successful examples of community led advocacy and the other question has to do with the transition team and i think we focused a lot on that but not so much in this moment right now where we can get the candidates on record, on very specific issues and is there one or two issues right now that is important for us to get the presidential candidates and/or congressional candidates on the record on? >> that's a lot. i will start by discussing two things really quickly because i am aware we are at time. first of all i would say a policy vehicle to take a look at in terms of getting community involvement in the system is food policy council. many communities have them, some states have them as well and if you're really interested in food systems, getting involved in your food policy council were starting one is a great way to do that. the second example that both of us were going to talk about but we didn't is the local example that i think is an example that could be elevated to state or federal is staple food ordinance, the city of minneapolis has passed an ordinance, it's the only one of its kind that requires any retail outlet classified as a grocery store including gas stations, dollar stores, it requires requires them to stock a certain amount of staple foods and the staple foods crack the whip on the food basket. they haven't done this in elsa relation. they've been laying the groundwork for many years and it first got passed in 2011 and got updated. they provide a lot of technical assistance through the local health department to store owners, particularly in unders served communities. they are working on very small margin so it's important for them to know how to store produce, promote produce and they've built that into the program. >> building off that, he lashed to they released a report called fixing that looked at five different americans these and one of them was minneapolis and highlighted that example. there are communities across the country that are doing incredibly unique different things in the food space to bring healthier foods to people across a range of spectrums. there's a lot of activity in the space but it's really about how do you translate that to the federal level. would that work or how do you bring those voices together with other people and communities around them. i think the appetite in different communities is there. it's really about bringing them together, coordinating and how do you work together with them. second point about the transition team, i think the question was is there one or two issues to get different candidates on the record right now? i think i'm speaking on behalf of the union where i said like to see every single food and issue on the record. to this point, there has been some mention of corn ethanol and some mention of sugarcane and a little bit of immigration but not necessarily agriculture. they're going to be doing a lot of work throughout the remainder of the year he states to make sure candidates do get on the record on these issues. healthy affordable food seems like a great place to start so since there's so much agreement on that issue, how do we do that and how to get them on the record is a good place to go. >> i think that's absolutely right. to answer the second question most specifically, i will put my old chief of staff hat on and i will say anything you get the candidates on the record doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. >> the way to be effective right now at this point in the cycle is to think down ballot and to go to folks in a very quantifiable way and demonstrate to them where the constituencies of interest are that matter to them. if i'm a member or if city council person, the very, very powerful organizing tool to bring people into the process at literally the retail level, that has a way of trickling up very quickly in the political process. when you have superdelegates and democrats going to the convention, talking about the fact, they are mayors. so when the superdelegates show up it's like i have a thousand people come yelling at me and i didn't know anything about it. me too. the same thing happen. that's how you move the process now. okay, with that, please, please join me in thanking our panel. on behalf of the institute i want to thank all of you for being here and participating. we hope to see you all soon. [applause] [inaudible conversation] >> here's some of what's coming up on c-span2. mark price from the economic policy institute talks about income inequality. live at 1:30 p.m. religious extremism in africa. a state department specialist and international crime and violent extremism and policy analysts are at the event. at 5:20 p.m. a supreme court oral argument focusing on religious liberty and specifically whether nonprofit groups can opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to the women who work for them. on q&a at 7:00 p.m., conversation with michael ramirez. >> tonight on the indicators we visited technology show on capitol hill and spoke with several developers of startup technology companies including a company that intends to deliver broadband to homes wirelessly. they also talk about the policy issue they'd like to discuss with members of congress. >> you are looking at ten times the frequency. [inaudible] the big advantage of that is that it gives you more bandwidth it gives you a thousand times more data. >> the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> all this week on c-span2 we are showing your programs from our q&a series. today we will feature michael ramirez. he's an american editorial cartoonist whose work appears regularly in usa today in the weekly standard. the two time pulitzer prize winner discusses his career and book him a give me liberty or give me obama the obamacare. it starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. join us this saturday for c-span issue spotlight, our focus will be on police and race relations. he will see president obama at the memorial service for five police officer shot and killed in dallas as well is republican senator tim tim scott of north carolina and his speech from the senate floor about his own interactions with police. it includes one family story about an encounter with police in washington d.c. that's followed by a panel with the city's police chief cathy lanier. it it gets underway saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. with the national conventions in the rearview mirror, rode wrote to the white house is on the campaign trail and headed toward the candidate debates. three are currently scheduled. monday september 26 at the university, sunday october 9 at washington university in st. st. louis and wednesday, october 19 at the university of nevada las vegas. all will start at nine pm eastern and you can watch them on our companion network c-span. >> a conversation on income inequality and economic issues in the united states. from a recent "washington journal" program, this segment is just over a half hour. >> host: he joins us to discuss income inequality. it's a topic that is likely to come up as hillary clinton gives an address in ohio this afternoon. h the top 1% of income income earners compared to the other 99%. the study breaks it down along state, metropolitan and county lines. mark price, let's start on the national level. when it comes to income inequality in this country, how does the top 1% compare to the other 99%? >> guest: what we found in looking at the data, roughly 1.6 million 6 million families in the top 1%, they earn 25 times the average income of the bottom 99% of families of families which is roughly 161 million families in the country. s that is the national level of inequality. most of your viewers will be surprised to hear when you look across the state, new york and connecticut stand out with much higher levels of inequality where the top 1% of families earn more than 40 times more than the bottom 99%. that. that of course is not a surprise for most because new york and connecticut are the home to disproportionate share of top executives for major corporations but also and more importantly it's a home to the financial sector, the big banks in new york county as well as the hedge funds which tend to be located in connecticut. what will be more surprising to your viewers is that the stateup of wyoming also joins connecticut with the top 1% in that state earning 40 times more than the bottom 99%. that is driven a bit by what we think is energy extraction. wyoming is a big oil and gas state but also, when you look at the local data, what emerges from that is that the top 1%, the, the most unequal metropolitan area is the jackson metro which is in jackson hole, they're the top 1% earn 200 times the bottom 99%. 99%. when you look across our data we see a similar pattern for what you might see as destination places, aspen colorado, key west florida, they all have very high level of inequality, at least in the way we are looking at here. we think that is driven by the fact that those very wealthy individuals who don't need to be close to financial markets, if you had $1 billion, if you've been to jackson you probably would think seriously about moving there or similarly for key west. they are beautiful places. they also tend to have high income folks. >> host: we will go through the data. the unique thing about this study looking at data on the local level as well as state and nationally, we are inviting our viewers to call in so we can talk about income inequality in your part of the country.00, -- we set up our phone lines a little differently this morning by income level. if you make under $25000 it's (202)748-8000. if you make 26 - $ 26 - $50000.2027488001 format. if you make over #10-0000. mark price you also studied the income gap over time. explain what's happened over the past several decades. >> guest: absolutely. we've probably all realize there is inequality and there always will be in the country, but what is more disturbing in the findings we have uncovered is that really from about 1980 the top 1% of families have captured a minimum of 50% of income growth. of course right now during the current economic recovery, it'sc up over 80%. that is quite unsettling, especially when you look back at the previous periods of time which we can do in this data. we look at the period from 1945 until 1979 until 1979. that picture is very different. the bottom 99% of families in that.am across the state captured the vast majority of income. that has reversed since 1980 and continues in our view to get worse with each expansion. as the the economy grows, ourio incomes rise, profits rise, rent goes up but increasingly since 1980, a disproportionate share disproportionate share of that rise in income has been occurring to this tiny fraction of folks at the top. that's true not just in new york and connecticut but all across the country it doesn't matter what state you're looking at. income is flowing to the top 1% of families. >> host: for our viewers, if you want to check out this study, it was it was done for the economic policy institute. mark price is a labor economist joining us to talk about this study.y. in this report, are you arguing for a fix here? are their policy proposals that you think would be the solution? >> guest: sure, i think when looking at this data andback to thinking back to the era when income growth was more broadly shared, where low income families saw their incomes wealthiest saw t - 1949 and the very wealthy saw their income level double. everyone got more wealthy having higher incomes as the economy grew.vi what was different about that era compared to today, there were a variety of things that lead up to begin to suggest changes. one of them that is very different today compared to that era is the union density is much lower today. we are actually at historic lows even for the 20th century for union membership. that really does mean that as profits rise and companies do well, it's not necessarily the case that the extra incomesh that's being generated shows up in people's paycheck. certainly 11 thing we would look for is more effort to expand people's ability to choose to join unions in united states. it certainly one way to think about it. there are other policies that would help for low income workers, raising the minimum wage is in important policy. there again it's important to remember that in that area when incomes were broadly growing for everyone, the minimum wage actually tracked with the growth and productivity of the economy. as our economy was producing lots of back opportunity in gains, it was broadly shared and the minimum wage went up over time to reflect that. the period since 1980 has been very different. workers continue to work and work more hours overtime. the minimum wage in terms of its purchasing power is lower today than it was in 1979 throughout the country. that is another area where we think it could help begin to press back on these trends. another simple policy solution that has been discussed is the change in overtime rules. that's a policy that doesn't necessarily affect low income workers. it affects salary workers. that threshold that would qualify you for overtime was much higher in the 1970s. it's been allowed to fall over time and the result is a lot of salary workers today that otherwise in the past would have been entitled to overtime have not been getting it. that is an example of a recent change by the obamaep administration that we think is an important step in the right direction of writing thesedi trends. as the economy grows and it spins off more income, that income is broadly shared to the people who are making sure that the economy is growing. people are working hard, building roads and bridges and manufacturing goods and services and providing us with all the things we desire. those folks so far, in that bottom 90% of families haven't been sharing in the gains the economy has been producing. >> host: so for example in the state of kentucky, the average annual income of the top 1% is about $620,000. you need to make at least $267,000 to make it in the top 1% per the the average income of everyone else, the bottom 99% is $37000. the top 1% means 16.6% more. calling in from kentucky is sonya on that line for those who make between $51,100,000 or good morning. >> caller: good good morning, thank you for taking my call. this has trickled down, it's obvious of that. when you begin anything, wealth will always trickle up but if you start with a pyramid type scheme, you build your base at the bottom. i'm not going to go through the economic equations here. however, i would like to saytheu that if the result has been that the tax base has been irrelevant because everything is up at the tap. if you let those wages start at the bottom than those people will spend them by refrigerators, homes, carpet and then that money will be taxed when they earn it. that money will again be taxed when we come up to the people who sell those things. once again it'll be taxed until the wealthy get their fair share. without starting at the bottom, this tax structure has been eroded and now we have no money for infrastructure, etc. i would like you to comment on that. : thank you for calling in and those are excellent point and i want to size and build on what you were saying. everyone should remember in the early 1980's, a decision was rate theut the top tax highest income family faced dramatically. the highest top marginal t so that the tax rates, the top highs marginal tax rates are much lower today than they were in 1980 and that again comes back to this issue in the earlier era when tax rates were much higher on those household income growth was were broadly shared. appeared since 1980 we were promised if we cut the top tax rates come if we give more money to the ceos, mummy to the financial sector that in turn they would take it, go and create new opportunity, create explosive growth and the economy would carry us all award. looking at this date across the states that hasn't happened. we did indeed cut top tax rates but it got had the effect of lifting all boats. as far as we can tell the only folks who really benefited dramatically from the pace of economic growth over time have been those at the top. you make excellent points about really what drives this economy more than anything else. consumers and workers, people who earn and spend and that spending becomes other people's income and helps grow thee economy. policies that move in the direction of changing tax polich so it's less favorable to the folks at the very top and more favorable to lower and middle income workers and begin to- think about what we can we do to get wages up for more people i think it's an important point. >> host: in the state ofd maryland a comparison of metropolitan areas in maryland shows eastern europe is the most unequal metro area in maryland. thee top 1% make 27 to eight times more than the bottom 99%. the average income of the top 1e is 1.5 million. the average income of the bottom 99%, about $54,000. go ahead, zach. >> caller: good morning.g. our youth? >> host: good. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my calls. a lot of interesting points so far. i would say buddy ago i recently dropped out income level the past two years were around 40,000 recently i was deciding to get into a field and other things that paid less. it's interesting to see the difference. i remember, i think the nation was when they're starting with you. so many expenses but i remember being in a really low income at the age of like 17, 18. doing whatever i can to save money. i was making nine, $10 an hourm from 17-21 when i got promoted in management. by the top of made a lot of sacrifices so i hadn't enoughav saved to buy a real first cheap house and a lot of people my age really were like no way, i would never do that, too expensive. but realistically it was so cheap to do so i owned it for about four or five years animate a good bit of money from those years and now i've dropped down. going down from that i could make a lot of sacrifices, from renting out rooms, things like that, at every job i noticed always try to start workers at the lowest wage. you never take the first offer given to a job. that's just one thing you just don't do.oyer actually recently in a past job and employer threatened to keep a close between is and if i mentioned it they would have to let me go, which i'm pretty sure is unlawful in maryland. speaking on unions, which i worked for best buy from the age of 17, they held meetings to talk to employees about the dangers, dissuade you from joining unions. those are my comments. >> host: appreciate the comments. mark price, on the issue of income loss and also income growth of who benefits and who gets affected most by those, can you discuss that from your report? >> guest: yes. sorry. thank you for your call, stack. certainly over time as we revealed in the report, in part of recession when the economy is shrinking and most are doing is losing income, it's actually th, biggest loss tend to be among the top 1% of family. you can think of losses in the stock market as one example of why that might be the case. it's during expansion like the one we are in now when the economy is growing, generatinggb new jobs.s. typically it's supposed to be a lease in general and how economists think about the labor market as the economy expands and the people are being added to payrolls, he began to see upward pressure on wages as employers struggle to find new workers. it's in the spirit of expansion that really the wealthiest 1% of families really make up, they do significantly better than they d do significa do worse during recessions. that's why over time the top 1% have captured an increasing amount of income growth. in these expansions, although they are technically recoveries, they are generating new jobs.ne the unemployment rate is currently come has fallen dramatically. the economy hasn't quite reached what we would define full i employment, especially when you think about workers in those prime age categories, 25-55. there are fewer of them workingd in the labor market today than before 2007 and that reflects the fact that the economy isn't quite up to its full capacity. when i it doesn't get there you don't see as much wage and income growth as would like to see. wages don't grow but incomes generate from things like owning stocks and bonds and trading ofi financial markets are being the chief executive of best buy or any other major corporation, the incomes to rise and so that's what you see this unequal split over time. >> host: we've got about 15 and left with mark price talking about the studies he wrote for the economic policy institute, about income inequality. taking your calls. we will stay in maryland where richard is late country and -- richard is waiting. >> caller: thank you for taking my calls and thank you, mr. mark price, for what you do. i am an indian american. i have lived the american dream ever since i came to this country with a few dollars. i have come up the ladder. what i was seeing -- one of the main reasons i did that is education. if you look at the indian american community here in the united states, none of us are on welfare. average gdp income is higher than most average americans born in the united states. likewise, because we have three things. we depend on education.we have t we depend on priority and we put emphasis on work ethics. and i think just raising the minimum wage and making people comfortable with minimum wage is not the right way to go. everybody should be taught, this country is the mostth opportunistic, i mean anh opportune for growth country in the world. it's such a wonderful country. people get jobs here, but if we can only emphasize education, let the kids grow up to earn their priorities, i know of a young girl who works at the front desk, and the first thing she does is by the 2016 model car and she doesn't like that, she wants it as she the energy goes back to bite suv. that's not the priority. i spoke to her and i said, you need to save. you need to get education. you need to grow. so my suggestion is that if people need to go economically, and what i have in my life here is that all these three things that he mentioned willill de definitely have the economic growth in this country, especially people in the lower social level. thank you for taking my call. >> guest: richard, thank you for your call and for your work and certainly for your passion. i think you are right,, it education, it's impossible to emphasize how important that is. at the same time when you do look at trends in income over time, it's clear that even folks with advanced level of education, we've significantly better educated populace today or even typical minimum-wage worker today is much better educated than 35 years ago. despite the fact with significant amounts of greater education. income trends have not been put. even looking at college graduates, they have not fared terribly well in the last decade or so. again reflecting the fact that , re the economy has not been strong enough to generate even wage growth for those folks. that goes back to the point education while deeply important and i think that the valley we both share, richard, the real challenge is even in the presence of higher levels of education, this economy is not generating broadly shared gains in income growth. it continues to be highly concentrated. one area where you and i would agree very much that's a problem for the united states is that there's careful research that examines the relationship between income of your parents to you income as an adult. in the united states that relationship is stronger than in most of the industrialized world.te so thinking of our counterparts in europe in particular. it matters more here, the income of your parents, than it does in those places. that's the challenge i think really to the american tree because we tend to think of america, richard, in the same way you've experienced it, as a place where people regard as a who their parents were or the income their parents had, had a great idea went on to become a brain surgeon or to develop an application, those folks will rise up and have new opportunity. the reality today is that that is listed in most of the industrialized world in the united states today.ed it matters a lot to your parents are. think about all the school districts all across the country in maryland, and sylvania. there are millions of kids growing up were not getting access to it high quality education. them because th that in turn hurts them because they will not achieve their full potential but it hurts me and you because at the end of the day i want my next brain surgeon or the next app developer to be the best person for the job. unfortunately, in the united states it matters a lot more what the income of brainre surgeons parents were than the actual ability. that is a real concern especially when you look at this david which is an increasing amount of income are flowing again to this very tiny group of folks at the top prospect in ohio, monroe county is the unequal county in ohio accordinl to research, the top 1% make almost 32 times more than the bottom 99% of the average income of the top 1% is over $143 million the average income of the bottom 99% is aboutto $42,000. pod is in shaker heights, ohio. good morning. >> good morning. mark price, you can tell me you want to read this report. two comments for you and the question.