The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-02-05
LRACOrreCtS Daily
Headline on Ira
Employment Figure
Labor Research Gives
JOble IS Figure at
''Nearly 10000, 900"

NEW YORK, Feb. 4.-Ihat g.
Gently printed story in the Daily
Worker, based on the data provided
BY the Labor Research Association,
had the wrong and misleading head
line 100000 Jobless,7 it is pointed
out in letter sent by the l.. r. A.
to the Daily Worker made public
today.
'Ycu apparently misunderstood
our statement" the L. R. A. states,
"and ATTEMPTED TO add to the
nearly 100000 figure the I'M
known number employed ON the
C. w. A. and other federal projects.
However, our estimate states speci-
ficaIly that we considered the
workers engaged on these projects
as unemployed"
The full text Of the letter sent by
the L. r. A. follows:
Dear Comrade Editor:
VIII you please publish the follow
ing corrections OF points in your
story CFeb. y about the Labor Re-
search Associations recent estimate
of unemployment in the United
States?
1. The headline Unemployment
at 17000,0 900, Labor Research Survey
Shows =" and the opening SEN
tence in the story, misrepresent the
L. r. A. figures. Our exact figure
and the one which was not quoted in
your story-was 15,845.000, so that
NEARLY $4,000 .000'' would have been
the correct estimate to include in
your story.
2. You apparently misunderstood
our statement and ATTEMPTED to add
to the nearly 100000" the IN
known number temporarily employed
on G. W. A. and other federal pro-
jects. However, our estimate (see
Economic Notes, January, 1880 states
specifically that we considered the
workers engaged on these federal
projects as unemployed. The reason
for this was the very temporary
character of such federal jobs and
the fact that many we're simply trans
ferred from relief rolls to c. W. A,
work.
8. You fail to state in your story
( that the L. R. A. Unemployment esti-
mate is as of November, 1893, This
compares with total Of 16,884000
unemployed arrived at in our unem-
plovment survey as of November
1929, one year previously.
4. 1t is common knowledge that
while the A. F. of L. estimate under
states unemployment and the Roose-
welt administration eXaggerates the
decrease in UNEMPLOYMENT (apart
from c. w. A.. etc.), the increase in
production and business ACTIVITY has
involved some increase in employ
ment. Unfortunately you did not re-
print our sumnorY paragraph:
while building. manufacturing
wholesale and retail trade and few
other industrial groups showed In
c~eases in employment, totslline
about two and a quarter million
these were in part balanced by de-
creased employment in agriculture
and transportation. Counting the net
increase in population during the
year. adding three quarters OF a
million seeking work for the first
time, the total number unemployed
Except in TEMPORARY emergency re-
lief work. has been reduced by only
1899 600"
5. You label our figures as very
conservative" because we have used
official government indexes. But you
overlook the extremely imDOrt
political point that while the gov
eminent provides the onlv material
available for a fair estimate Of IN
employment, it fails absolutely to use
that moterial itself. The government
hos not dared to assemble the totals
which can be drawn from its own
figures! 1t is. however, significant
that two business organizations
TsuNiness Week in the autumn OF
j 1922 end Alevnnder Hamilton Inst
tute in March. 1888 alone amone
the innUmerebla capitaHst AGENCIES
/ did make public-without very wide
spread puhlicitv, however-~ealistic
estimates of the vast army of unem-
! pl"ved workers.
Both Of our estimates were reached
quite INDEPENDENTLY of anv other
! available estimate, and. we believe. by
more scientific and exhaustive meth