Evening star., 1940-04-15

Charles G. Ross. technology 1 n
such a fashion as to provide de-
cent jobs for the millions of idle
who are able and willing to work"
The words are those of the ch0Dr-
man in outlining the study.
Why is it that with production
hitting the 1929 prosperity level as
it did toward the end of last year,
we still had 100000 unemployed'
Why is it that we have 100000
families with incomes of less than
$3.50 year and an additional H.
100000 with incomes between $3.50
and s1,5OO?
Why is ito lump a hundred
questions into one-that the genius
which has enabled us to solve the
problem of production has failed
tragically before the problem of dis
tribution?
Prospectus Admirable.
To put the question is to show
the profound importance of the
committees inquiry into the social
and economic effects of technology
Chairman O'Mahoneys prospectus
is altogether admirable: The
leaders who have been invited to
testify are under no restriction of
any kind. We are not trying to
prove case for any remedy or for
any approach. We are not seeking
to solicit evidence to Justify more
Government or to justify increased
expenditures.
Admirable, too. was the manner
in which the hearing was opened by
the committees economic adviser,
DR.. Theodore j. Kreps, an economics
professor at Stanford. 1t is possible
here only to glance at his paper,
for any one who will take the trou-
BILE to go through it and study it's
charts and graphs, there's liberal
education in the subject.
One of the statistical facts at the
root of the problem of chronological
unemployment: From 1924 to 1898,
thanks to the machine-by which is
meant all forms of improved meth
ods Of production-the productivity
of labor increased 40 per cent. Since
1929 the output per man hour has
increased 25 to 30 per cent.
Another point brought out by DR..
Kreps: The percentage of available
workers from As to 64 is increasing
rapidly and finding jobs for men
over 40 will in the near future re-
quire every scrap of ingenuity that
leaders in business and Govern.
ment can summon"
The Brighter Side.
On the brighter side. suggesting
the infinite possibilities that lie in
industrial pioneering: Substantial
portions of the output of some of the
largest chemical companies consist
of products that a few years ago
were unknown. For example. the
Monsanto Chemical Co. of ST Louis
reported recently that products put
into commercial manufacture since
1929 accounted for 80 per cent OF
its sales in 1888. Forty per cent of
the business of the Du Pont Co. in
1887 was done in products relatively
unknown in 1929.
The present needs of industry:
Not more capacity but more market.
Industry is equipped to produce
national income of 90 to 100 billion
dollars.
At this point Chairman O'Ma-
honey summed up: That is an
other way of saying that the prob
lem now is one of distribution rath-
er than of production"
DR.. Kreps: "Yes, I think that
would follow"
The question was posed: Who has
received the benefits of technology
in the last 20 years? The answer,
roughly, was that benefits had been
distributed to the consumer, in the
form of lower prices, but not to the
extent that they should have been
not to the extent that they must be
If the beneficent possibilities of the
machine are to be realized. AS the
case was stated by DR.. Kreps: The
best argument for, if not the proof
and substance Of. technical prog
ress, consists in the lower prices
that are quoted to consumers. These
savings from increasing productive
ity, if passed on to consumers, in
crease the purchasing power of mil
lions of people and thereby give in
creased opportunities for employ
ment to millions of businesses
throughout the country
Problem Stated Graphically.
This is what might happen. It
has happened up to now in degree
far from sufficient to make the ma
chine the unmixed blessing that 1t
ought to be. Instead. along with its
benefits. the machine has helped to
produce complete absence Of en-
ployment in quantity We don't
know"
DR.. Kreps stated graphically the
problem with which the committee
is wrestling: There are some truly
gigantic bridges to be built, eco
nomic bridges connecting the needs
Of these families (the 100000 at
the bottom Of the economic scale)
with the goods which our superb
machines can produce.
There are, in short, two frontiers
the industrial frontier and the
frontier Of economic adjustment
80 If we vigorously push advances
In technology and refuse to make
the requisite economic adjustment
we will set up grave tensions In our
society. To call q moratorium on
the progress Of the machine is both
unwise and impossible. But the
shortsightedness of those who argue
that the industrial frontier is gone
is only exceeded by the stupid de-
featism of those who wish to call
halt to economic adjustment"
What form should this adjust
ment take? Chairman OMahoney
and the economist, between them,
arrived at this answer: There
should be no limitation of produc-
ton. but building up of the con-
Stunning capacity of those 10000, 900
families.
y, ~