« 이전계속 »
and Mr. Mosher certainly did not mean construction having to do with private buildings. Mr. FLANDERs. Well, supposing private building drops low, then the type of thing you have been speaking about that has postponable items in it—some of those items are not postponable, but some should be thrown into the market when private construction runs low. That was the idea. Mr. CHURCH. Yes. Mr. FLANDERs. All of those things you mentioned are not easily postponable. Mr. CHURCH. Suppose this program was limited to that, the socalled construction items. Do you envision the cost of H.; statistics that would be reliable enough for the committee to depen upon? I would like to get your idea as to the cost of that kind of statistics for a program such as that which you suggest. Mr. FLANDERs. #. Mr. CHURCH. And the cost of reliable statistics and figures and planning that this H. R. 2202 would call for. Mr. FLANDERs. I am not particularly competent in this field, but I do know this; that the gathering of statistics in this particular field is now carried on in private industry on a very large scale and with a great deal of detail. I mentioned the Dodge reports, for instance. Mr. CHURCH. Yes. Mr. FLANDERs. There is sufficient information on the part of the contractors the country over, since they subscribe to these reports and support thereby a very large statistical organization. They do it for business reasons. These reports give them some idea of the ups and downs of the construction industry and from these reports to some extent there can be determined the amount of Federal employment that may be required at any particular time. As to what would be necessary, I think we should have a sufficient reserve on the shelf, but I would prefer referring that to some one who has made a special o and, as I say, Mr. Ruml has made a special study of that and I have not. You see, my whole idea is that you have here something that is a good foundation on which has been put in this paragraph (e) on page 3 a very handsome stone, but that stone does not make the building. That, in brief, is what I have been trying to say, and we do not want to stand off and admire your foundation and this handsome stone in aragraph (e) as though we had built a complete, admirable structure, ause we have not. Mr. CHURCH. Referring to section 2b on page 2 where it says: All Americans able to work and seeking work have the right to useful, remunerative, regular, and full-time employment, and it is the policy of the United States to assure the existence at all times of sufficient employment opportunities to
enable all Americans who have finished their schooling and who do not have full-time housekeeping responsibilities freely to exercise this right—
Who is going to determine the remuneration? Who is going to measure that throughout the Nation? Mr. FLANDERs. I prefer my own definition of that right. Mr. CHURCH. What do you think about that? Mr. FLANDERs. Who is going to determine those rights and the kind
of-work? I doubt if it can be done, except in the presentation of job opportunities, and those job opportunities will not satisfy a great many people owing to their location, owing to the kind of work, and other things of that sort.
The situation, I think, will turn out to be this: That as private industry and the Government are more and more successful in reducing unemployment, we will find that the residuum unemployment is more and more difficult to handle because it will be made up of special cases. Some of the people will, no doubt, be of the unemployable character because of some peculiar quirk in their make-up. Some people will be in specific locations where it is difficult to do something for them. Some of them will have specific trade skills, the demand for which is decreasing. Thus you will find at the bottom of your pot of unemployment all the problems. All those problems will be accumulated in your last two or three million, and it may be when you get to that we will want an analysis of that situation and to devise specific remedies for this multitude of specific cases, rather than expecting to solve them all by a general situation. Mr. CHURCI. You heard the testimony of Mr. Mosher a while ago! Mr. FLANDERS. I heard the last part of it.
Mr. CHURCH. Did you hear where he pointed out there were numbers of persons in his town that he knew about that never would work or could not work or did not want to work productively.
Now, is a bill like this apt to mean that the Federal Government will hold out encouragement for that sort of person, so that he will feel that he has the right to look to the Federal Government for work at a certain definite scale of wages?
Mr. FLANDERS. It would so seem.
Mr. FLANDERS. "Job opportunity” is a better way to put it than "employment."
Mr. CHURCH. How much will he do on any job? He has the job opportunity if he goes to work.
Mr. FLANDERS. Yes, we are going to have a certain percentage in this residuum of the unemployed who cannot be taken care of, and under free economic employment they must be treated as special cases.
I have in mind a friend of mine who, with a neighbor, employs a man who works on their shrubbery, and so forth. Now this man goes on a bat starting Saturday night and shows up Thursday morning every week. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday he is all right. He is perfectly satisfied with his way of life. It is the way of life he has chosen, and it so happens that he fits into the schedule of my two friends. They are perfectly satisfied with this man's way of life, but it does not fit into this picture. A man who wants to go on a bat every week, 3 or 4 days a week, does not quite fit into this picture.
Mr. CHURCH. What about the "freedom” in this program
Mr. FLANDERS. Only about 3 days a week. I guess he isn't seeking work. However, if my two friends should decide not to employ him, he probably would be seeking work and he could not take work that
would be offered under normal conditions. He would have to find some sort of a special situation like that which he now happily enjoys.
Mr. Church. That is an opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. It gives him an opportunity to enjoy the liquor he buys.
Mr. FLANDERS. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further? Mr. FLANDERS. No, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement. The committee will stand adjourned until Tuesday morning at 10 (Thereupon the committee adjourned, to meet on Tuesday, October 23, 1945, at 10 a. m.)
FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1945
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1945
House of REPRESENTATIVEs, CoMMITTEE on ExPENDITURES IN THE ExECUTIVE DEPARTMETs, - Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 10 a.m., Hon. Carter Manasco (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This morning we have Mr. George Terborgh, research director of the Machinery and Allied Products Institute. You may proceed, Mr. Terborgh.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE TERBORGH, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, MACHINERY AND ALLIED PRODUCTS INSTITUTE
Mr. TERBoRGH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, let me express, in behalf of the Machinery and Allied Products Institute, which I represent, our appreciation of the opportunity to comment on the full employment bill of 1945. We consider this one of the most important legislative proposals of recent years. We understand that three different versions of this bill are before the committee, and that testimony is invited on all. One draft, S. 380, was introduced in the Senate on January 22 last and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. o was substantially amended by that committeee before it was reported to the Senate and was further amended on the floor prior to passage, coming to the House and to this committee on October 1. Another draft, H. R. 2202, introduced in the House on February 15 and referred here, is identical with S. 380 before amendment. Another House bill, H. R. 4181, sent to this committee on September 25, is identical with H. R. 2202, save for a few minor additions. For the sake of simplicity and convenience, I shall confine my remarks entirely to S. 380 and H. R. 2202. These represent the same basic proposal at two stages of its evolution, the House bill reflecting the form in which it was originally introduced in both Chambers, the Senate bill incorporating subsequent amendments. Rarely have the broad objectives of a legislative proposal enlisted more universal sympathy and support than those of the bills now before the committee. Their declared purpose is to assure the continuous full employment of the Nation's labor force within the framework of a system of free competitive private enterprise, surely a consummation devoutly to be wished. In the language of the House bill— * It is the policy of the United States to foster free competitive enterprise and the
investment of private capital in trade and commerce and in the development of the natural resources of the United States.