People use their cell- and smartphones in a host of ways in
public, according to a new report from Pew Research Center. When in public,
phone owners say they most frequently use their devices for basic social or
information-oriented tasks. Many also use phones to pass the time, catch up on
other tasks or get information about the people they are planning to see.
Despite what some people imagine, most rare was using one’s
phone specifically to avoid interacting with people nearby. Most cellphone
users say that they rarely or never use their phone to avoid interacting with
others; about one in four (23%) do this at least occasionally.
As a rule, smartphone users are more likely to do these
things frequently than other cellphone owners; younger adults are more likely
to do these things frequently than older adults.
Most cellphone owners (65%) say that when they are in public
places, they use their cellphone at least occasionally to look up information
about where they are going or how to get there. Some 33% of all cellphone owners
do this frequently, making it one of the most common activities queried. Among
smartphone owners, 82% look up this type of information at least occasionally
when in public.
Most cellphone owners (70%) also say they at least
occasionally use their phones while in public spaces to coordinate getting
together with others, with 29% doing so frequently. Two-thirds (67%) of
cellphone owners say that when they are out in public spaces, they use their
phone to catch up with family and friends at least occasionally, with 29% doing
so frequently. Women are more likely than men to say they frequently use their
phone to use a phone for this reason.
Sometimes using a cellphone in public is just
something to do: about half of cellphone owners say there’s no particular
reason for using a phone in public. This is overwhelmingly the reason for younger
cell phone owners— ages 18 to 29—who do so (76%), compared with those ages 30
to 49 (63%) or people ages 50 to 64 (34%). People over the age of 65 are far
less likely to turn to a phone just because it’s there (16%).
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
The omnibus spending bill to fund the entire government is
nearing its final stages—the due date is December 11—and one section might well
address the fiduciary proposal by the Department of Labor (DOL).
Using the
bipartisan legislative principles to govern retirement advice released in
November as a springboard, the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor
and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing about these principles and their place in retirement advice.
Brad Campbell, counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and
former assistant secretary for employee benefits security at the DOL, gave
testimony at the hearing, praising the principles as expanding access to advice
while protecting investors.
One of the takeaways from the hearing, Campbell tells
PLANADVISER, is the bipartisan concern in Congress that the DOL’s proposal has
some serious problems. “The question will be, does that translate into Congressional
action in the upcoming omnibus bill?” he says.
Possibilities range from defunding the DOL’s ability to
pursue the rule to asking for another round of comments, to rifle-shot bits of legislation
that would direct the DOL to do or not do certain things, Campbell says, noting
the DOL’s fiduciary proposal is just one of many issues.
“The key takeaway is there’s bipartisan interest in where the
DOL is going, and how they are they going to get there,” he says. That interest
could translate into some changes in the proposal as it now stands.
Many workers rely on financial advisers to help them save for
a sustainable retirement, according to Representative Phil Roe (R-Tennessee), because
retirement security is a complicated process. “As policymakers, we should be
doing everything we can to ensure workers are able to effectively plan for life
after leaving the workforce,” Roe said in the hearing. “Unfortunately, we’re
here today because a proposal from the [DOL] is threatening to make it harder
for workers to do that.”
Rachel A. Doba, president of an Indiana engineering firm with
15 employees, said in testimony she maintains a 401(k) plan for her workforce,
working with the same adviser since 2011. “He is a trusted part of my team,”
she said. “Not only do I trust him to help me with implementing and maintaining
my retirement plan, but also my employees trust him to provide educational
materials that will help them make sound financial decisions. I am convinced
that without the financial adviser most of my employees would not participate
in the 401(k) plan and would not receive the benefit of the matching
contribution.”
Jules Gaudreau, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors,
expressed approval of a bipartisan legislative alternative to the DOL
proposal, saying it would “protect retirement savers’ investment choices, their
access to professional advice and education, and their hard‐earned savings.”
But Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, managing director of public
policy and communications of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards,
registered support for the DOL’s fiduciary proposal, calling the department’s
process fully open and comprehensive.
NEXT: The DOL defends
its process
“The re-proposed rule is fully consistent with the principles
of a true fiduciary standard under ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security
Act],” Mohrman-Gillis said. “Congressional intervention in the DOL rulemaking
process is unnecessary and will only serve to delay or derail this long overdue
reform needed to protect and preserve Americans’ retirement savings.”
Campbell said the hearing addressed substantive issues and
was a good opportunity for members to understand where the problems are. “The
notion that it’s either the DOL approach or nothing,” he said. “The hearing
illustrates there are other alternatives. Seems to me there’s bipartisan
concern that while the DOL has held a lot of hearings and gotten a lot of
comments, we don’t know where they are going to end up.”
In a statement shared with PLANADVISER and other media
outlets, the DOL reiterated its position on the fiduciary proposal as written. “The
cost of continued inaction is too high: conflicted retirement advice costs
Americans $17 billion per year,” says a DOL spokesman, emphasizing the more-than-five years’ effort that the department
has put into addressing the problem, including “substantial outreach, thousands
of comments, four days of public hearings, and conducting over a hundred
meetings with a variety of stakeholders.”
Ironically, said the DOL spokesman, the efforts by these
members of Congress “jettison the transparency and inclusiveness they correctly
demanded, instead favoring a process of closed-door deliberations dominated by lobbyists
and industry insiders.” The result would be a product that is “ultimately less
protective of middle-class retirement savers.”
The spokesman also criticized the bipartisan
effort for undermining public confidence in the rulemaking process. Instead,
the DOL spokesman said, “members of Congress who are genuinely interested in
protecting the savings of America’s workers should wait to see the results of
the Department’s incredibly open and thorough process before proposing
legislation on this issue.”