Figures in Disguise

For over a year the Eisenhower Administration has refused to concede that unemployment is a lasting problem in the present American economy. For over a year, however, more than four million Americans have been unemployed, and there are a number of people who think that such a statistic represents more than a transient concern.

Six thousand such people "marched" on Washington in early April to let the Administration see that the problem was a real one. They were met by that fine, old, "prosperity-is-just-around-the-corner" line which Republican officials have found so handy in times of economic crisis. Specifically, they were told--in a Labor Department press conference clearly aimed at quieting them--that unemployment was on the decline, that the problem was licked, that they could go home and trust Ike.

But actually they were not told the truth. Though the touted figures show that jobs increased by 600,000 over normal during March and that unemployment declined 190,000 beyond normal during the same period, they do not show that the hard core of joblessness was affected. To the contrary, long-term unemployment, a figure reflecting those who have been without work for more than 15 weeks, increased by 80,000 to 1,544,000. The durable goods industries--which had been hardest hit by last year's recession--showed little more than the already predicted recovery rate, about one per cent. In fact, many of the new jobs in that field came from the steel industry, where pre-strike panic has produced an unnatural, impermanent job rise.

Beyond the phony figures the AFL-CIO marchers got little satisfaction from either side of the political fence. Labor Secretary James Mitchell said that he was "proud to stand on the record of 64 million jobs in this country as of today" and promised three million more by October. But he also indicated that he had "not been satisfied" with previous Administration action on the problem, a sentiment in which his audience concurred. The Democratic leaders were not much more helpful. Lyndon Johnson, for instance, contented himself and apparently the labor chiefs, with a promise to form another study group to get to the heart of the unemployment situation. But there is already a plethora of study groups working in the field, and it seems unlikely that the Texan's task-force, approval of which he hurried through Congress, will come up with startlingly new conclusions or solutions.

What is needed is a positive and immediate program to reduce American unemployment, but so far neither political party has given its official blessing to any practical suggestions. In this category one would place a Federal standard for relief benefits, which now vary from $5 a week in Iowa and Kansas to $45 a week in New York and Alaska and from five weeks duration in Florida to thirty weeks in Pennsylvania. So far, the states have shown no desire to agree on such a standardization among themselves, and a Federally-legislated minimum, such as that envisioned by bills before the Senate and House, seems the only practical solution. Another measure which would decrease the burdens of unemployment would be a bill to extend the Federal insurance program beyond its present scope. Both these plans would serve to insure that workers do not drop their consumption activities the minute they are laid off. At the same time that the relief money is preventing the jobless from near-starvation, it would also pump new funds into the economy. These revenues could, of course, be employed to put men and women back on the payrolls from which they had been dismissed.

At any rate, it is apparent that the proposals so far advanced by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership lack imagination or a sense of urgency. It is difficult to argue that the condition of the economy necessitates large-scale public works projects, but it is clear that unemployment is a more pressing concern than anyone has so far admitted. If Secretary Mitchell's goal of "full employment"--unemployment of only three million--is to be realized, Washington needs to come up with more far-seeing responses than have yet developed.