're having fun. >>don't worry because she'll be back. >>where are the lefties besides on current tv? >>joy behar is getting her own show coming to current tv this fall. >> eliot: in player piano, author kurt vonnegut tells of the story of a society stolen by automation. is this futuristic image one where we're quickly approaching? in a column in in "the new york times" we look at the role of the hollowing out of today's

middle class. the issue of the disappearing middle class is not new but the credible economists have added a more threatening twist to the argument. the possibility of a well-functioning efficient modern market economy driven by exponential growth in the rate of technological innovation can simultaneously produce economic growth and eliminate millions of middle class jobs. joining you know to discuss the how technology is changing the job market is eric brynjolfsson. thank you for joining us. >> it's a fleshing, good to see you. >> eliot: is the middle class finished based on this rise and emergence in technology. >> the work that we've done at mit shows that technology many a hit. the past ten years have been devastating in devastating in

middle class jobs and wages. people are making less money now than in the 1990s even though the economic pie is bigger than it was. we're at an all hi time high of gdp and productivity. >> eliot: i want to make the point that is critical to what you've written. the crisis you're describing precedes and pre-dates the economic cataclysm of 2008. you're describing a longer term trendline and the crisis was an accelerant. the red line, explain what the red line is on this chart and perhaps the blue line is as well well. >> sure. the crisis that began in 2007 is undoubtedly a big part of the job loss. you can see that in in the steep part of the red line. going back ten years the job

growth has been sub-par. income growth has been sub-par. the recession accelerated that, and the relatively weak job growth since then is what we saw in the previous recessions as well. so there seems to be a more structural change that has happened in the economy. this is not just a housing bubble or the financial crisis, bad as those were, or the european crisis. this is something based on the underlying technology of the economy, and the work we did at the mit center nor more digital business points to digital technologies in particular. they're create enormous wealth and productivity. you can see in the chart corporate profits investment, gdp. they're at all-time highs. by those metrics the economy is doing incredibly well. unfortunately the average worker has not benefited significantly. >> eliot: the median family income has been stagnant, and fewer and fewer people are working as a percentage of the

total population of the country. and this is the the convergence of globalization and technology. technology in particular that is different now than it used to be. because let me state the argument of the skeptics who say, look, technology has been around thousands of years and the industrial evolution and the emergence of until over the past 50 years has only led to increased wages productivity and number of jobs. what is different now about technology as you see it? >> the skeptics are right. the technology has always been creating jobs. it's always been destroying jobs. 90% of americans used to work on farms in 1800. now it's less than 2%. all those people did not become unemployed. they went to new industries like the auto industries that henry ford helped to create, the work that edison and steve jobs and others. whole new industries were created. what is different this time is the scale, scope and speed of the technological change is so

great that the jobs that are being eliminated are much bigger share of the economy than the new jobs that are being created in areas like the app or i iphone or facebook. so we have an imbalance. >> eliot: would you say it would require input and employees to be hired is now beginning to sink artificial intelligence is displacing workers in a different way and faster percentage wise than it used to. >> that's exactly right. it used to be that much of the work that was eliminated was muscle work. now information process equipment is eliminating information processing jobs. that's over 60% of the work in the economy. it's not just a little part of the economy that is being effected. it's really every part of the economy, every job that is being effected. the speed of this change is much more rapid than the past.

moore's law means the computer power is doubling every 18 to 24 months and it doubles again and then it doubles again and keeps doubling. when you apply that speed of change to that broad of jobs the information economy. you have enormous disruption. looking forward we're concerned because its likely that the underlying trends we've identify are going to accelerate in the next ten years. we don't see this as a temporary blip we can get over once we work our way out of this recession. this is a structural issue in the economy that we need to think about now. >> eliot: because of the great recession, and the cataclysm of '07 to now we need to increase the demand and economics you're saying there is a structural crisis that runs much deeper. how do we begin to confront it.

what would you put in place to spark job creation? >> i want to be clear. there certainly is a structural demand problem and solutions would do a lot to get us out of it now. but we have a longer term problem which is a:match--a mismatch between technology and institutions. to address that gap we need to reinvest in education. there has always been a race between technology and education. we used to always win that race. now we're 23rd. we haven't made the investments that we used to make. we also have to rethink the contract we have with our educators to not just to higher pay but more accountability. perhaps most promising is a set of new technologies that can transform the way we do education. at mit we have a program thought "mitx that brings online education to everyone in the

world. there is con economy that does that k through 12 and many other technological advances that can bring the productivity improvements to the educational area that have already cured in manufacturing, retailing and distribution and other areas. >> eliot: we'll have to have that conversation some other evening whether online education is the way to bring high quality low cost education to the vast majority of our public and so we can compete. another conversation for another night. eric brynjolfsson, thank you for your time tonight. anyone who listened and understood all of this gets two credits at mit to graduate. we appreciate it. >> it's been a pleasure. >> eliot: violence in the middle east on a talk show. the viewfinder coming up next.

>> eliot: still to come as the g.o.p. tries to block the vote, the naacp fights back. but first, a stadium struck by lightening, a reporter struck by a car and all of us are

awe-struck when the five celebrates an anniversary on fox and friends. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> congratulations. one year ago this week the five premiered, and you broken all expectation. >> when will the united states elect a female president? >> 2040, 2050. >> that's late. >> let's hope so. [laughter] >> mike tyson what does an ear taste like. >> well, that depends it depends on which ear that you bite. >> murray was the first brit to be in the finals in 76 years ago a brit won. 73 years ago brit was in the finals. >> and grand rapids celebrating

their new time in a very appropriate fashion later today. and we're live in east town, and those details coming up. [ . [ speaking in a foreign language >> who was the cheapest? >> the cheapest? i don't know i'm going to guess greg. >> announcer: you can tell he's talking-- [ thunder and lightening ] >> wow that was frightening. [ yelling ] >> the shows' a hit. i've talked to people about the show, and it is a hit.

>> thank you bob. >> eliot: as far as i know there is a gun-free set. voter i.d. laws, are they a bad solution in search of a non-existent problem? coming up next. >>we talk a lot about the influence of money in politics. it is the defining issue of this era. the candidate with the most money, does win.

>> eliot: while every election is decided at the ballot box, who gets to put a ballot in that box remains a battle. take pennsylvania where the governor rejected a request to overturn the state's new voter i.d. law. it was discovered last week that 758,000 residents lack an i.d.

made necessary to vote by a new pennsylvania statute. that's over 9% of the state's population. the laws especially restrictive in democratic areas including it's biggest city of philadelphia where 18% of residents lack vote i.d. and may be rendered unable to vote. >> voter i.d. which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, done. >> eliot: there is a nice neutral reason to pass the statute. according to nyu's center, restrictive voting laws will effect 5 million citizens including a disproportionate number of minorities. that's why naacp made the voting rights its theme of its convention. >> let me be very clear our right to vote is the right upon which our ability to defend every other right is leveraged.

>> eliot: joining me now is hilly shelton senior vice president for the naacp. thank you for some of your time tonight, hillary, and thank you for your work in this area. are the statutes nothing more than a brazen effort to dis disenfranchise minorities? >> absolutely. if you look at the data in pennsylvania and the rest of the country, the same stringent policies were passed everywhere we would find 25% of all age-eligible african-americans would not be able to vote. they would be locked out of the process. but it's not limited to africa mens. you would be look at the same problem in young people, 18 to 24 are locked out. women who utilize more than one last name, those who have gotten named, a different name on their driver's license and others, it creates a problem there and our elderly as they move to a point where they don't drive anti-more and don't have driver's license photo i.d.s they, too are locked out of the process.

it's outrageous and there is no reason for it. when they talk about the issue of fraud what they really talk about is what happens during the registration problem. the photo i.d.s are utilized at the voting process. listen to all the example of the fraudulent efforts going on throughout the country they happen at registration process. photo i.d.s do not fix the problem. >> eliot: i want to zero in on the problem. you're right. this is a boogeyman that is used to justify a series of students that i deem perhaps unconstitutional, but how do they prove or pretend there is a problem here that needs to be fixed? >> this is the amazing thing. it is the boogeyman. what ends up happening when you ask the question how do photo i.d.s fix this problem or more importantly show me where there is a body of of course, evidence in which there is widespread voter fraud in which people are going to the polls pretending to

be someone they're not. they'll tell you we don't have information like that because we're not restricting them from comeing to the polls without photo i.d.s. this really is a solution looking for a problem. in the process the collateral damage means millions of americans will not be able to vote in november. >> eliot: that seems balance that has to be struck. millions of americans will be disenfranchised. when you look at the number of actual voter fraud cases that has been brought there is simply not the necessary predicate to pass the laws. how do fair-minded legislator support this bill? >> it's that slight of hand. you've got those who come in driven by organizations like alec that know very well if you pass these kinds of measures, if you're a part of that group and those extremists that are not committed to the democratic

process, if you want to hold your office, it's not that you have to prove that you're the best person of the job but you come up with the best strategy and the best scheme to prevent people from coming to the polls and voting their interests. we have to announce loudly and clearly that our democracy is much more important than that, and our integrity and how we present it around the world are jeopardized when we allow the schemes are allowed to be implemented around the country. >> eliot: as you said, significant numbers in pennsylvania, significant numbers in texas. there are legal troubles as well there is a trial question questioning it, is there way we can strike toes these statutes down? >> only in certain places. the reason why the challenge is going on here in texas where we have our national convention and in south carolina is because they're covered by section 5 of

the voting rights act that requires any changes to the time place or manner in which an election is carried out because of their previous bad behavior disenfranchiseed so many because of race and other differences, they have to make sure that they go through the justice department voting right section. the justice department determined through their research if we pass our allow these particular programs to be implemented in texas and in south carolina, that those billions of americans as we mentioned earlier would not be able to vote and as a carry out of that, very well we know it has to be stopped. the law provides that protection. but section 5 is not covered throughout the country. it's only covered in those states that has an established bad track record of discrimination in the voting process. >> eliot: mitt romney is going to be at your convention on wednesday. he'll make his pitch why folks should support him. are you going to ask him in that setting or private meetings why

he's leading disproportionately in the african-american community. >> we talked to him prior to him coming talked to him about the kind of issues we would like him to address that are extremely important to the african-american community. as you saw from the clip in the naacp we want to know how you can create this type of havoc on on the core of the democracy, the rights, we would like to hear him talk about that issue and so many in his party supporting those issues and why he, indeed, would support these initiatives well. >> eliot: hilary, i would say to him, governor romy, with all due respect, why would you want to pass all these laws that you would restrict the right to vote when there is no evidence of fraud and you want to repeal the

fraud on wall street where there are massive folks committing fraud. >> that's very well worthy of asking. when it comes to the naacp there is not a period of question and answer period, but i hope everyone watching your program will watch that speech on wednesday morning and hear how he responds to the issues that are important to the african-american communities and the entire communities throughout our country. we asked him and talked to him about what our agenda is and the question to him and quite frankly to advice president joe biden when he comes on thursday. what would you plan on doing if you become joe biden, vice president again after november what would you do to address these issues and challenges in the african-american. and mitt romney, if you're elected as president of the united states, what will you do to address the real issues and challenges of the african-american community as well, and voting rights is the top of that list. but there are so many other issues we would like him to

respond to as well. >> eliot: we'll be watching to hear those answers on wednesday and third. hilary shelton advocate for the naacp. thank you for your time tonight. >> it's been great sir. >> eliot: thank you, sir. would donald trump be a nicer guy if he didn't have money? i kind of doubt it. that's coming up. collide on "the gavin newsom show". this week: can a futurist really predict the future?

so, you guys grew up together. yes, since third grade... what are you lookin' at? not looking at i anything... we're not good enough for you. must be supermodels? what do you model gloves? brad, eat a snickers. why? 'cause you get a little angry when you're hungry. better? [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry™. better. [ male announcer ] snickers satisfies. innovation matters now more than ever.

if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> eliot: let's check in with jennifer granholm in "the war room." good evening, governor, what have you got for us tonight. >> oh my gosh, i'm so glad to see the president on offense

with romney and targeting these tax cut proposals. i know you've been looking at voter i.d. we're going to look at it specifically in pennsylvania because we've got the chief of chefelections official. we have many who can be disenfranchised, a whole bunch of stuff, very excited. hopefully your watchers will stick around. >> eliot: they will, indeed. rule number one in politics, never play defense. more "viewpoint" coming up next. calls out the mainstream media. >>overwhelming majority of the county says: "tax the rich don't go to war." our conversation is with you the independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers.

>> eliot: big brother is spying on us, and it's about time we started spying back. we see that in an amazing statistic brought to us by congressman ed markie. law enforcement asked cell phone carriers 1.3 million sometimes last year for subscriber information, caller information and other data. 1.3 million requests in one year alone. sometimes officials had court authorization for the request. sometimes they didn't. sometimes the request was an emergency. many times it wasn't. most of the time the cell carriers complied with these requests some of which related to more than one person. investigators often got for and got a list of all the phone calls routed to a particular cell tower during a specific time. even though they ask cell phone carriers for more and more information, they went to court 14 more fewer times for formal

authorization. why go to all the trouble of showing probable cause when you can just call up the phone company and get all the records. put this together with the conversation we had several weeks ago with three totally credible nsa whittle blowers who said that the nsa had been recording literally millions of phone calls without any legal authorization. every key stroke, twitter message and facebook post is stored and accessible, not just to law enforcement but often to private parties. we have left behind the old word of private--old world of privacy and we've crossed into a new frontier of spying. we need to figure out when government can get authorization, i'm not much for commissions and special reports. usually that's a hard way to punt on a horde decision but this is not an easy balancing act. sometimes law enforcement needs information immediately to save a life or catch a terrorist. that's why the president should

appoint wise thoughtful folks to look at this issue and provide crisp rules so that we don't have to worry about big brother listening, taking notes of who our friends are. we go to the know what t and how they know it. that's my view.

>> eliot: in a famous literary conference a critic is alleged to have said to ernest hemingway, and i quote the only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money. but perhaps the critic was wrong. according to an article in new york magazine research suggests they really are very different. a psychologist paul piff showed in a study earlier this year, i quote, living high on the socio- socio-economic ladder can dehumanize people. it can make them less ethical more selfish and more insular and less compassionate than other people. with me is lisa miller to cover

her recent story "the money-empathy gap." another indictment to hate the 1%. this is nasty stuff. >> no, no, it's not. we're explicitly not indicting the 1%. what these researchers. >> eliot: saved by your math, i get it. >> what these researchers are doing is a new school of social science studying how money effects human behavior. it's never been studied before because it's never been seen as a problem. you're successful, you're healthier than other people, buy another stuff and get a bigger house, what is the problem? we tend to study problems. now in this socio-economic environment having money can be seen as a problem. there is this group of have's and have not's and they can't speak to each other and they

have completely different priorities. >> eliot: it's a fascinateing area, it's just occupy wall street that the phrase 1% has taken on such heavy meaning. now freighted with all of these issues if in fact, you're right--not you individually, but the studies a that you're reporting on this, do you accept it as a writer? >> the research shows incrementally more money makes you less ethical and more selfish and more insulated and more numb. if you make $150,000, you're more numb than someone who makes $50,000. we're not talking about people who have $14 million. >> eliot: before we get into this and the fun stuff, i have to ask you about the method of questions, causation. do you get rich because you're less ethical or are you okay in the beginning and then you become less ethical. >> great question, and the answer is yes and yes.

people who have these qualities selfishness individuality self-serving, these people get ahead. they're ruthless. >> it stands to reason in market-based reality. >> people who have money behave like this. when they have children, they teach these lessons to their children. it's self perpetuating. >> eliot: i can't help think about mitt romney's fundraiser in the hamptons where people were lining up calling from their bentleys and rolls royces to each other they're insulated. >> that's right. it's particularly relevant in the romney situation. there is a lot of conversation about why romney doesn't connect. maybe one reason if this research is right is that, you know he has got too much money. >> eliot: you said something important. if the research is right. we'll all come back to mitt romney. we wouldal love to beat him up.

he's out on his boat and jetski on vacation. but when playing montana the game. >> they're making one person rich and one person poor and watching them over months to see how they behave. they're not saying that you can extrapolate this to all the rich people in the world. you can't make generalities about every individual's behavior based on these lab experiments. what these lab experiments are doing for the first time measuring these little variables, more money less money, more power less power. administer more status less status. they're not saying that all rich people are jerks we know that's

not true. >> eliot: go back 100 years or maybe it's always been there when we developed an elite that was far from the norm. >> we've always known--jesus said money corrupts. we've always known that money and power corrupts. this has been an area of philosophy literature for thousands of year. air toaristotle wrote about this. this is new to science j i'm speaking beyond my expertise but there was a period where the fact that people were successful in making money was viewed as a positive sign rather than a critical statement about their lack of empathy. >> definitely. one of the things that is happening in america today and we've read a lot about this by the pundits what is happening to the american dream? i did talk to historian who said in the early part of the 20th century everybody was bought into this dream.

this idea that capitalism was good and you could succeed and get ahead not only was it true, it did happen to people. you could go from nothing to a lot. it was really possible. that has sort of stagnated in the last-- >> eliot: and fact there is a very serious moral debate about capitalism and what money can't buy. >> and it has been written about from the morality perspective. a lot of people are looking at this bifurcation of our society and wondering how it got this way. one of the things that this historian said to me, in the early part of the 20 of the century there were counter forces. the labor most, the theological movement started then. there was this idea that collectivity communal good was also a strong virtue and not just-- >> eliot: now we got to come back to politics. last question. mitt romney, barack obama both

wealthy. obviously by several degrees different, but still both wealthy compared to the norm in our society. can you differentiate between them because of where they come from in terms of this lack ever empathy that you read about? >> one of the things that the research shows is that you know if you have a lot of education and a really powerful job, money is only part of that equation. so it's hard for me to say that the person who has you know, become the president of the united states is some how more communally minded and less ruthless and less both of these guys are very self directed. >> eliot: anyone who has been in politics, even apart from the ruthless selfishness the wealthy. >> it's hard to say. >> eliot: can i say that with introspection. >> it's hard to