Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I) - Remarks at a Roundtable Discussion With Employees of Therma, Inc., in San Jose, California

[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)]
[May 1, 1998]
[Pages 653-662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

Remarks at a Roundtable Discussion With Employees of Therma, Inc., in
San Jose, California
May 1, 1998

The President. Thank you very much. I want to thank Joe and Nicki for welcoming me here.
I want to thank Dan Kirby for the tour through the
operations. He did a great job. Thanks to Congresswoman Zoe
Lofgren and Mayor Susan Hammer, my good friends, for joining me here today. I thank the
labor leaders that are here, Amy Dean, Ray
Lancaster, Mark Van Den Heuvel, Steve Preminger. But
most of all, I thank all of you for giving me a chance to leave
Washington and come out and visit the real world. It's great. Thank you
very much.
Before I say a little more about why I came here today, I'd like to
make a brief comment on something very important to your future that did
happen in Washington, DC, late last night. Last night an overwhelming
bipartisan majority of 80 Members of the United States Senate voted for
a treaty that will permit us to bring Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic into the NATO military alliance.

[[Page 654]]

Now, why does this matter to you out here on this factory floor? I
think it's very important to you and to every American. We fought two
World Wars and lost a lot of Americans, and waged a long cold war in a
deeply divided Europe. The Berlin Wall fell, communism dissipated,
giving us the chance for the first time in history, ever, to deal with a
Europe that is free, democratic, and undivided. That's important. If we
can do that, that means you will know that you'll have stable partners
for trading purposes. You can sell them things; you can buy things from
them; you can be a part of growing. Even more important, it means you
know that your children will likely never have to go there to fight and
die in a war. And furthermore, you know that we'll be able to work
together on the problems that do exist in the world, to contain them.
Now, just in the last few years since I've been President, we have
used NATO for those purposes. We've brought in two dozen other countries
in a Partnership For Peace, and they work with us all over the world,
training, working with our militaries together. We made a special
agreement with Russia and with Ukraine. And together, we went into
Bosnia and stopped the bloodiest war in Europe since the end of World
War II, with no conflicts, no shooting, no deaths.
So that's why this is important. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic--three more partners that will make our alliance stronger. If
we have to do something in the future, that's three more countries that
will be contributing people, sharing our burden, and building a future
of strong partnership based on trade and commerce and travel and
visitation, not on conflict. It's a big deal.
And I would like to thank the Senate Majority Leader, Trent
Lott; the Senate Minority Leader, Tom
Daschle; Senator Jesse Helms; Senator Joe Biden--all
of them. This was an unusual coalition of people--[laughter]--who worked
together to do something that a lot of people didn't think we could do.
And it's going to make a better world for our children. Ten years from
now, it will look like an even bigger vote than it does this morning. So
I thank them.
I'd also like, before I begin, to offer my condolences to the family
of the police officer, David Chetcuti, who
was killed in the line of duty last Saturday, and express my gratitude
for the bravery he showed when he lost his life. And in that connection,
I'd like to thank the police officers from the motorcycle crew from
Santa Clara County, because they had to accompany me on this visit, and
they're missing his memorial service that is going on this morning. So I
thank them for doing that.
Now, let me tell you why I came here: because, to me, you guys
represent the future. You're good at what you do; you're changing all
the time; you're committed to getting better; you're operating in a
global economy; you have a good management-labor partnership; you have
apprenticeships for new workers; you have training for veteran workers
to make sure they learn new skills and master new technologies. You're
proving that Silicon Valley's economic revolution does not just include
computer programmers; it can include all the workers of America if we're
all well-trained, highly competitive, and the best in the world at what
we do.
You're evidence of that. I thank you for it. I wanted America to see
it. And mostly, I wanted to talk to you and your representatives behind
me about how we can do this all over America, in every part of America,
and set the processes in motion that will keep it going year-in and
year-out.
You are a very important part of this wonderful economic renaissance
going on in America now. Yesterday we saw that the economic strategy
that we put in place over 5 years ago in Washington did, in fact, work
to unleash the competitive capacities of America. We said we were going
to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. We were going to invest in
our people, in education, in technology, in scientific research, in
environmental investment. And we were going to trade more with the rest
of the world. We were going to open more avenues to trade our goods and
services.
Yesterday we saw more evidence that it's working. The economy grew
in the last quarter at over 4 percent. Unemployment was the lowest in 28
years; inflation, the lowest in 30 years; consumer confidence, the
highest in a generation. For 5 years in a row now, our country has been
rated the most competitive economy in the world. You did that, you and
people like you all over America, and you should be very, very proud of
yourselves.
Another reason I wanted to come here was because this company proves
that even in Silicon Valley, opportunity to participate in that new
economy embraces more than those who work

[[Page 655]]

directly with computers or in laboratories or in offices; and also
shows, as this gentleman demonstrated, that computer technology has
revolutionized every aspect of American labor and therefore that we all
must become more familiar with it.
I couldn't believe it--I told the folks that were going around with
me that at one point during my long service as Governor of my State, I
would go out about once a month and spend a shift working in different
kinds of factories. And I was around a lot of sheet metal workers. I've
seen a lot of welding in my life, and it was a long time ago now, a few
years--that's light-years as fast as things are changing--but the
machines I saw today and the level of the work I saw, it's just so
breathtakingly different than just 10 years ago, it's almost
unimaginable. You, of course, understand that better than I do. But for
somebody like me who hasn't seen this work in a few years--I don't have
as much time as I used to, to do these sort of things--[laughter]--it
was quite shocking in a very positive way.
And again, I say I think it's important that all of America see that
these kinds of things are going on and that all American workers in all
forms of endeavor have an important role to play in building our future.
The other point I wanted to try to explore today is how we can
really make sure that everybody has a chance to participate in it,
because you know as well as I do that even though the unemployment rate
is the lowest it's been in 28 years, there's still places in America
where it's fairly high. And there's still workers in America who work at
tasks where they're not improving their productivity; they're not
learning new skills; they're not mastering new technologies; and they're
not getting raises.
And what we have to do now at this moment when the economy is
working so well is to try to devise systems that will work for everybody
who is willing to work for himself or herself. We have to try to make
sure that the lessons that you live every day in this place are somehow
learned where they don't exist.
We're doing what we can in our administration to create the special
economic incentives to go into inner-city areas and isolated rural areas
where there hasn't been a lot of new investment. We're doing what we can
to give people the ability to start their own businesses more easily in
those places. But I think you know that unless we can guarantee a world-
class education to all our kids and a system of lifetime learning for
all workers in America so that they can always continue to learn new
skills, we will not be able to reach the people that presently have not
yet fully participated in this recovery.
You've done a great job on that, and I just wanted to be here. I've
done my best to do two things that I think are important. One is to open
the doors of college to all Americans of any age. With our HOPE
scholarships now, we give virtually all Americans a $1,500 tax credit
for the first 2 years of college and then credits for the second and
third year, and for people who, like many of you, might want to go back
and get further training, we've increased scholarships and made the loan
program better. And there's also now an education IRA so that you save--
for example, for your children's education, you can put the money into
an IRA and that money is not subject to tax when you put it in. And then
the gain is not subject to tax when you take it out if you use it for
your children's education, to try to help make it easier for people to
save for education.
The other thing we're trying to do is to create a training
opportunity for people who work in companies that are not as
sophisticated or advanced as yours, by passing what I've called--and
I've been trying for 5 years to pass this--the ``GI bill'' for America's
workers. We have literally dozens of Federal training programs. And if I
gave you a sheet of paper and a pencil and I asked you to write down
five of them, I bet you there's not a person in the room who could do
it--probably including me. [Laughter] But there are dozens of them. And
they were all created for some particular good purpose when the economy
was more static than it is, before it started changing like it is now.
What I've been trying to do for 5 years is to collapse all the
programs, put it in a fund and just give everybody a certificate who's
eligible for the training and let them take it to the local community
college or wherever else, to let the people who need the training have
the money and then choose the place where they want to get the training.
I think most of you have enough sense to plot your own future, and most
other adults do in this country, too. And it would be a lot better than
having all these separate bureaucracies and programs there.

[[Page 656]]

So we're working on that. The House has passed a good bill. The
Senate has got a bill up--I think they're going to take it up today. And
I hope that this vote last night on NATO is a good indicator of what
might happen on the ``GI bill'' for America's workers. Because think
what it would mean if every person in every workplace in America--every
person in every workplace in America--if they lost a job or if they were
grossly underemployed, could get a certificate which would basically
empower them to get further education and training at any point during
their life. It could revolutionize the lives of a lot of those folks
we're talking about that have not yet fully participated in the
recovery. And I hope we can get the support for it.
The last thing I'd like to say is that if you all are going to keep
producing more things in less time at higher quality, you've got to sell
them someplace. And you have to sell them to companies that in turn sell
their products. Everybody you sell something to has got to sell what
they sell--produce to somebody else. Otherwise they can't buy your
product. So it's very, very important that we have a growing American
economy and a growing world economy.
If we don't have a growing world economy, we're going to be in deep
trouble. Why? Because we have 4 percent of the world's population, but
we have 22 percent of the world's wealth. Now, you don't have to be a
mathematical genius to know that if you've got 4 percent of the
population and 22 percent of the wealth and 96 percent of the people are
living someplace else, and for the next 20 years in the developing
countries, they're projected to grow at 3 times the rate of the rich
countries, somebody has got to sell something somewhere else than
America in order to maintain our 22 percent share, in order to maintain
the opportunities that we all want for our children.
And that means that we have to help other people get wealthier, too.
And you may have noticed, in Washington we're having a big argument now
about whether we should pay our fair share to something called the
International Monetary Fund, the IMF. What that fund does is to help
countries who get in trouble stabilize their economy so they can start
growing again--from our point of view, so they can start buying our
products again.
Now, we're out here in California--30 percent of our economic growth
in the last 5 years has come from selling to other countries. Over 30
percent of our exports go to Asia. You have been reading in the papers,
I'm sure, that a lot of those Asian countries are in trouble. The IMF
does not just go in and give people money; it says, if you've got a
problem, you've got to clean up your act, organize your business
properly, start running your economy efficiently, and if you'll do these
things, then we'll help you get stabilized and start growing again.
Those Asian countries are our trading partners. They're an important
part of our future. And I think we ought to pay our fair share to the
IMF. I don't care what other political business is going on in
Washington--and there is a lot of other things that are going on here--
we should do whatever is necessary to keep this expansion going. And I
hope that you will send that signal. And I want to thank you
representative, Zoe Lofgren, for being strongly
in favor of this position. But we've got to convince the Congress that
America, if we want to lead the world economically, has at least got to
pay our dues and put in our part of an institution that is going to help
Asia come back so we can keep selling.
I guess that's a long-winded way of saying the best way for us to
succeed is for me to do my part and you to do yours. And I'm going to
try to do that. But one of the things that we have to do is get the
focus in Washington on basic things: How do we build a world-class
education system; how do we support companies that are committed to
changing technologies; how can we make sure workers can continue to get
the education and training they need? That's what I hope to learn from
you here today, and what I hope through your voices all America will
hear on the news tonight and tomorrow morning.
Thank you for the example you set for our country. Thank you very
much.

[At this point, the discussion proceeded, and it is joined in progress.
Joe Parisi, founder and president, Therma, Inc.,
said that his company tried to be ahead of the curve and benefited from
training schools established in partnership with employee unions.]

The President. How do you determine--first of all, who pays for the
training?
Mr. Parisi. The employers donate so many cents per hour toward a
training fund.

[[Page 657]]

The President. And are the training programs just for the employees
of your company, or do they include people from other companies?
Mr. Parisi. All of the people in the construction trades go to the
training schools.
The President. And is there a regular schedule for doing it, or does
it depend on what new things you're doing at any given time?

[Mr. Parisi explained that most of the employees participate in a 5-year
apprenticeship training program in order to become a journeyman and that
60 percent of employees at the journeyman level continue their education
in evening classes.]

The President. And you started this company 31 years ago?
Mr. Parisi. Yes.
Nicki Parisi. Yes.
The President. When Nicki was underage. [Laughter] Now, I didn't
want to put this out on the record. How many employees did you have when
you started?
Mr. Parisi. Well, one or two. [Laughter]
The President. And how many do you have here today?
Mr. Parisi. You're looking at them--1,600, I think, give or take.
The President. That's pretty good growth. That's impressive.
LeRoy, do you want to talk about----

[LeRoy Ginn, project manager, Therma, Inc.,
discussed how the company gave its employees opportunity to prosper in
their careers.]

The President. Give us an idea of the different kinds of customers
you have. Do you serve people in the computer business, people in the
biotech business?

[Mr. Ginn said the company served every major computer manufacturer, as
well as manufacturers of tools to make computer chips. Another
participant noted that the short product life cycle in the technology
industry encouraged Therma employees to be innovative in order to help
their customers stay competitive. Another praised Mr. Parisi and his
wife, Nicki, cofounder and chief executive
officer, Therma, Inc., for promoting independent decisionmaking by field
personnel.]

The President. Good for you.

[The participant explained that the fast turnover of projects in the
high-tech industry fostered utilization of the best talent. Patricia
Glenn, customer service manager, Fix Air Co.,
said that time constraints mandated cooperation among companies in the
industry. Other participants cited the willingness of employees to adapt
and react quickly because of the level of trust placed in them.]

The President. That may be the single, most significant revolution,
even more important than all the technology, that's occurred in
manufacturing in America over the last two decades or so. The companies
that are doing really well are the companies that empower their workers
and that learn from them as well as teach them, and where people are
working together.
I can go to any part of America and spend half an hour in a plant
and immediately know, without anybody having to say anything, how people
feel about that, because that's the most important thing that you see--
anyplace you go, whether the answer is a good one or not a good one,
it's down deep inside the most important thing to the people that work
there.

[A participant commented that the lack of a formal hierarchy at Therma
allowed for a friendly and cooperative work environment. Other
participants concurred that the company's teamwork approach inspired
both customer and employee loyalty over the long term.]

The President. That's what you said, right?
Participant. It's true. That's right. [Laughter]
The President. You could go somewhere else.

[Participants described training and learning opportunities provided to
employees to enhance their skills and improve their careers.]

The President. You know, it's interesting, I have worked hard--with
limited success, I might add, but more than I would like--more than I
thought in the beginning we'd have--with the Vice President, to try to organize this kind of workplace in as
many Government agencies as possible. And it's harder in some ways,
because you're organized to make good things happen and to make good
things happen in a hurry. A lot of people who go to work for the
Government are terrified that something bad will happen, and it will be
on them, and they'll read about it in the newspaper, and then they'll
have to be a scapegoat for it.
So what that tends to do is to create a kind of a--to reinforce the
sort of bureaucratic mentality: Don't venture out, don't try, because if
you make a mistake, it will be in the papers;

[[Page 658]]

all the taxpayers will be mad; you'll be the goat; you'll be out the
door sort of thing. As a consequence, more mistakes are made.
If you think about it, we've still got--we are really trying to
create an environment in which we can respond more quickly to people's
needs. We're having--just a little example--we're having millions of
people this year are filing their income taxes by E-mail or telephone,
in just a few minutes. And most people have a fairly simple form. There
may be, I don't know, some percentage that will be harder to check, or
whatever. But the point is, it's really worth doing because it's a
hassle on the best of terms and to make it easier for people is a good
thing to do.
And the Social Security Administration, believe it or not, won an
award, over L.L. Bean and a lot of other places, for the best telephone
service of any major, big organization in America. [Laughter] But we
really worked at it.
But it requires getting people to not be afraid to try something
new, and to let them know that, assuming they're not abusing the
citizens or something, that if you're actually out there trying to do
something new and you're taking a chance, if it doesn't work out, you're
not going to be punished because you want people to feel that way.
But it is really--it's an enormous challenge to try to create the
flexibility and productivity you have in an organization like this,
where you have clear common goals. I mean, it's not like there's no
uniformity of objective--or uniformity of standards. But you still have
some creativity in carrying it out. And you've kind of got my juices
flowing to keep trying today.
But every effort we've made in Government has been worth it. But I
just--I want to urge all of you to support us in doing that, too,
because it's like everything else. If you give people a lot of freedom
and you ask them to try, once in a while you make a mistake, because
nobody is perfect. And you have to create an environment in which your
people are trying to do the right thing for the right reason and not
being reckless in doing it--you support that.

[A participant agreed with the President, and Ms. Parisi asserted that
if mistakes were not made, nothing was being attempted. She then quipped
that she and her husband could make a lot of mistakes, but their
employees covered them up.]

The President. I could say something hilarious about that but I
won't. [Laughter]
Let me say again, though, I think--one of the places, interestingly
enough, where we've had quite a bit of success is a place that you might
not expect, is in the military, because we have very rigorous, uniform
training characteristics. I was out here a couple of years ago, actually
in the harbor at Oakland, having lunch on an aircraft carrier with some
career Navy people. And I talked to an enlisted man who had done 19
years in the Navy, and he'd quit and gone to work in the private sector
for 2\1/2\ years, and he came back to the Navy because he said that as
compared to the private sector job he had, he had much more
responsibility and they trained him--they gave him at least one new
skill every year. It was fascinating. And he said, ``Eventually I'll
have to quit this, and I'll still be a young person,'' but he couldn't
find another job in the private sector where someone was always teaching
him something new and where he was being given more and more
responsibility. And that's basically what I'm hearing from all of you.
Participant. Hopefully.

[A participant discussed Mr. Parisi's devotion to the company's training
center and stressed the importance of training in the high-tech
industry.]

The President. You'd be amazed how little of this is done in some
other parts of the country and some other sectors of the economy. And
yet I'm convinced you would have pretty much the same pay-off
everywhere, because what you go around here, you see that--I mean, sure,
you're serving all these high-tech industries, but if this company were
located out in the middle of the country somewhere where you had a
totally different customer base, you would still be making more money if
you were doing the same things you're doing here. Isn't that right? And
you would still have that gentleman over there running your computer
program for you and you'd still have all this--in other words, you'd be
doing all this stuff that you're doing here, even if you had a different
customer base.
That's what we've got to get people to understand, that we need--
that you can't--education and technology dominate every form of
production. And just the fact that your end users happen to be in
Silicon Valley predominantly, or be in this kind of business, is almost
incidental

[[Page 659]]

to what we should be doing in every workplace in America, I think.

[A participant said he had acquired skills he could take elsewhere if
necessary, though he wanted to stay at Therma. Other participants agreed
and discussed the level of cooperation within the company and with
specialists in the industry, as well as the rate of growth of companies
in high-tech fields, particularly the pharmaceutical-biotechnology
industry.]

The President. For whatever it's worth, our people believe that that
will continue for another 20 years because of the human genome project
and all the mysteries we're unlocking. Just 2 years ago--year before
last, we found these two genes that are predominate in causing breast
cancer. We've seen splicing of nerves in laboratory animals that
actually repair the spines of laboratory animals that have been broken,
so that they can actually have lower body movement again, which offers
the possibility, if we can work out the genetic sequencing in people,
that people who are in wheelchairs because of spinal cord injuries may
be able to walk again.
All these things are happening, and the pace at which these genetic
discoveries are being made is accelerating rather dramatically. So I
think there will be more of it.

[A participant noted that Therma process engineers designed the process
for a biotechnology firm to make its product.]

The President. That's an amazing story. [Laughter]
Participant. No, it happens all the time.
The President. Just your typical sheet metal worker story.
[Laughter]
But again, it shows the power of ideas. And if you think about it,
work can be a lot more interesting now than it even could have been 50
years ago, when it wasn't being powered by ideas and repetition was
important in building the kind of traditional industrial society. Now
work can be fun and good because the whole economy is being powered by
ideas. And that means also that there is an unlimited, inexhaustible
supply of future human endeavor, which is why I believe, for example,
that the environmental movement, the movement to have--to deal with the
problems of climate change and global warming, which we've seen a little
bit--a taste of with El Nino this year, that that will not cost jobs,
that will generate jobs, because we'll have to figure out how to do it
and ideas will be brought to bear on it. All these little people that
come up with all this stuff and then become fabulously wealthy are just
idea machines.

[A participant agreed, noting that the ban on chlorofluorocarbons and
certain other refrigerants caused problems in industry, but was also the
catalyst for many cottage industries in alternative technologies.]

The President. The CFC thing is a great example. When we took
chlorofluorocarbons out of the atmosphere, it not only--it was projected
to have a modest negative impact on our economy, and instead it had a
noticeable positive impact. And I think that the important thing for the
Government, for us, to do is to--when we make these rules is to make
them in such a way that allows these kinds of processes to develop.
Participant. Phase them in?
The President. Yes. And to give a market solution a time to work.
That's a big concern I had when we went to Japan last December to try to
come up with some rules about how to deal with climate change. I am
positive that--if you look at what puts carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere today, about a third of it comes from vehicles; about a third
of it comes from buildings, both residential and commercial; and about a
third of it comes from power plants and factories. And we now know that
there is available technology--just for example--you can buy windows now
which let in 6 times as much light and let out only one tenth as much
heat. They cost about 3 or 4 times as much, but if they have a 2-year
payout, then after that, you're making money. And once you get the
technology, once it all works out, then we will be doing these things
that we ought to do for the environment because they also are good for
the economy. You have to turn the problem into an idea machine.

[A participant described how the company's energy retrofit department
helped companies run more energy-efficient buildings and operations by
upgrading equipment and operating controls.]

The President. Yes, what do you require? If you start something new
like that, how quick does it have to pay out for you to think it's worth
doing?

[[Page 660]]

[A participant replied that most customers wanted to see the payback in
energy savings in 1 year, but that some were only interested in low
construction costs, no matter how quick the payback.]

The President. Well, we're trying to see if we can make a few
changes in the Tax Code that will change that behavior, because in
manufacturing processes there are like--there's not one big thing, as
you know, there's dozens of little things that can be done, all of
which, at least the ones that I've studied, have a 2-year or less
payout, which dramatically cuts your energy bill. And then after that,
you're making money eternally.
And so we're trying--I have asked the Congress to adopt some minor
changes in the Tax Code which won't cost a lot of money, but which would
give significant incentives if you're right up against that decision--
you say, ``Well, can I wait a year, year and half to get this money
back?''

[Participants said that such incentives would be a big stimulus to their
industry, noting that decisions were too often based solely on bottom-
line profit and stock market success.]

The President. They would have been better off waiting in the last 5
years. Wait and wait and wait. [Laughter]
Participant. It's a tough call.
The President. You've got the biggest stake in this. [Laughter] I
asked him if it was true he had nine children. My notes said he had nine
children. He said it was true, and I said, congratulations. [Laughter]
Well, I mean, it's true; you have a stake in this meeting. You have nine
kids that will be able to do hundreds of different things that haven't
even been invented yet by the time they're old enough to go into the
workplace.
Johnny Gooch. That's true.
Participant. What's the age span of them, Johnny?
Mr. Gooch. Oh, God. [Laughter]
The President. He's going to start bragging now. [Laughter]
Mr. Gooch. From 23 to 17 months.
The President. Do you have twins?
Mr. Gooch. Yes. Most of you know who know me, I have 2 sets of
twins, 8 years old and 17 months. Big span. [Laughter]
The President. That's great.
Participant. ----extended production. [Laughter]
The President. Here's a man who wants to be taken care of in his old
age. [Laughter]
Participant. There won't be enough Social Security. [Laughter]
The President. Oh, yes, there will. [Laughter]
I will say, though, one of the things we're doing now is we're
undertaking a process across the country to determine what we have to do
to change and modernize both Social Security and Medicare to make sure
it's there when the baby boomers retire.
The generation of people who will turn--the oldest baby boomers--I'm
one of them--the people that were born between '46 and '64, that group
of people, are the largest group of Americans in a given generation in
history, until last year when we got--last year there was finally a
group of school children that were more numerous than the baby boomers.
But that skips a whole generation and then some. So that when we're all
in the retirement system, which is roughly 2029--that is when we're all
65 or over, which is about 2029, we'll all be--all the baby boomers will
be 65 or over--if we continue the projected work force participation
rates and the projected retirement rates, there will be only two people
working for every person who's drawing Social Security. And, so, we're
going to have to make some fairly substantial adjustments to make sure
that the benefits are there to provide at least the minimal support that
Social Security provides today.
About half of the seniors in America would be living below the
poverty line if it weren't for Social Security, although almost all
seniors have income over and above Social Security. Social Security
itself is not enough for hardly anybody to maintain the standard of
living they had before they retired, but if they didn't have it, they'd
be in trouble--most people. So what our trick has got to be is to figure
out how to keep what is good about it, but to make the adjustments
necessary so that it's financially stable and so we can--and maybe have
a little bit higher growth rate from our investments--so that we can
deal with the coming population changes.
Participant. The one thing nice about the unions is that they have a
fabulous pension program. They retire real well.
The President. Pension plan.

[[Page 661]]

Participant. [Inaudible]--with the advancement of all of the medical
advancements and lifestyle changes, that the retirement age of 65 is a
little bit shy now, that we can extend that out.
The President. Yes. We're raising it to 67.
Participant. I think it should be even higher than that. I think
people are productive way after that.
The President. Well, one of the things that we're trying to do to
deal with that--we've raised it to 67, and then we have made it
possible--we've put incentives in the system for people who want to work
to work longer.
If you raised it to 70, for example, the real problem with that is
that the--and, of course, you have early retirement at 62 and you take a
discount. You'd change the discounted value. So the more you raise the
retirement age, the less you get if you retire earlier. But the real
problem with going--and we're looking at this, and as I said, we've
tried to raise the incentives, for example, now, for people to keep
working. Because if they keep working, they keep paying taxes and
they're paying into the system even if they're also drawing some Social
Security. And that really makes a huge difference in leveling up the
system.
But if you go to 70, you could probably work here comfortably at
70--here--but there's still a lot of people who work in jobs where it
would be quite difficult for them to work that long. And so, if--you
say, well, but you still have the early retirement option--that's true,
but the early retirement option is worth considerably less, because you
take the present value of the whole deal, because you move the full
retirement out later than if you retired at 62, you get a little less.
I agree that it has to be raised, and we are raising it to 67. We've
tried to--and one of the things that--one of the variables that's being
looked at is whether it should be raised more. Other people have
suggested that we have, for younger workers, some portion of the payroll
tax available for their own investment decisions on the theory that--
now, that looks like a wonderful idea now because the stock market has
gone from 3200 to 9000 since I've been President, and there's no
precedent for that in history.
It's also true that over a 30-year period--any given 30-year period
in the 20th century, stocks have always outperformed guaranteed
Government investments. The problem is, if you had an individual
account, it's not true in every month of every year. So what happens if
you have to retire in a year when the thing is down for several hundred
points and you don't get it out. If there's some way to sort of share
the gains, if you will, across the years--that's one of the things we're
looking at. Because, obviously, if we could generate a higher rate of
return for the investment that you make in your payroll tax, it would
make Social Security more attractive to younger workers.
The other thing, don't forget, that Social Security does that other
retirement systems don't, is it's also--it's a disability plan and it's
a survivors insurance policy. So if you pay into Social Security here
and something happens to you, then your surviving family at least get
something to help them survive, and that can be quite important.
But let me just say this--there is a huge amount of discussion about
this out there now, and I think most Americans know we've got to make
some changes. And I think most Americans will support us making some
substantial changes, because there is no point in being dishonest about
it, we can't sustain the present system as the baby boomers retire at
the present rates of return.
But there is also--it's important not to overlook how much good this
program has done to stabilize--the poverty rate among seniors in America
is now under 11 percent, and it is lower than that of the population as
a whole. It has been for over 10 years now, for the first time in the
whole history of America. And that's something that our country should
be proud of. So we have to figure out how to save the best parts of it.
But you ought to tell--if you have any ideas, specific ideas, or you
want to even organize the folks in the company to put their ideas up, if
you give them to Congresswoman Lofgren, I
promise you they will be carefully reviewed by our group, because we're
actually trying to go out in the country, tell people what the facts
are, and figure out what the best resolution is.
Participant. Mr. President, I think I see a signal here that we have
to quit. [Laughter]
The President. This is Clinton's Second Law of Politics. When you
start to have a good time, you're supposed to be somewhere else.
[Laughter]

[[Page 662]]

I've enjoyed this immensely. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I
appreciate it.

Note: The President spoke at 12:35 p.m. in the Therma, Inc., warehouse.
In his remarks, he referred to Dan Kirby, floor manager, and Johnny
Gooch, sheet metal foreman, Therma, Inc.; Mayor Susan Hammer of San
Jose; Amy Dean, business manager, and Steve Preminger, community
services director, South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council; Ray Lancaster, Jr.,
business representative, Plumbers, Steamfitters and Refrigeration
Fitters Union Local 393; Mark Van Den Heuvel, business representative,
Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104; and David Chetcuti, a Millbrae, CA
police officer who was shot and killed in the line of duty on April 25.