Evening star., 1940-03-04


lesser of our ills.
These are truisms. and precisely
because they are, there is danger
that their significance will be over
looked or forgotten in our pre-
occupation with the sideshows Of
she political campaign and at the
moment with foreign affairs. No
national candidate seeking the favor
of the people should be allowed to
dodge the great underlying domestic
issue of unemployment.
Is Related to Farm Ills.
What has brought this problem Of
| unemployment to the top Of the
writer's mind is a speech which
Milo Perkins, president of the Fed
eral Surplus Commodities Corp,
made recently to a farm institute
at Des Moines. We are accus.
toned to think of the farm prob
lem as one thing and the problem
of getting men back to work in in
dustry as something entirely diff
ferent. Mr.. Perkins shows vividly
how interrelated are the two.
He approaches the subject from
the angle of the farmer. The
farmers troubles stem from his
production of more than he can sell
in the present market at a profit.
There are three reasons behind this
condition. One is the fact that
scientific methods have enabled the
farmer, without extra labor. to make
two blades of grass grow where one
/ grew before. He doesn't know
where to sell that additional blade
And Foreign Trade Losses.
The second reason pointed out by
Mr.. Perkins is the dislocation of our
foreign trade. incidentally. he saws
| that the present war is certain to
hurt our agricultural exports in the
long run, and he fears that after
the war things will be even worse.
This is the unhappy prospect be-
cause the allied nations, fighting
fire with fire, are going more and
more on a totalitarian basis and
| adopting centralized controls of
their foreign trade. After the war,
Mr.. Perkins thinks, we are likely to
find ourselves in a world reluctant
to give up its barter economics.
The third great cause Of farm
surpluses has to do with the TO-
100000 unemployed Here is where
the plight of the farmer and the
plight Of the jobless industrial
worker are seen to be integral parts
of the same problem. For the term
"surpluses." as Mr.. Perkins says, Is
simply a Snug. polite name for a
shocking amount Of undercon-
sumption"
The Case Is Stated.
He states the case very simply
and very graphically. Notwith-
standing the fact that industrial
production rose last December to
the 1929 level, we continued to have
an army Of unemployed not much
smaller than that of the bleak days
of 1923. The reason for this was
twofold: The growth Of population
and the increased output per work.
er-something like 20 per cent in
the last 10 years. We have been
smart enough to make amazing
mechanical Improvements. Are we
going to be smart enough to pro-
vide jobs for the jobless? Mr.. Per.
kins does not exaggerate when he
says that "On our answer to that
question-not in words but in jobs
/ hangs the future of our industrial
democracy. In other lands 1t has
lost its race against time: If we
have the courage to make it work
here, then we shall be in truth
chosen people"
We can produce almost anything.
The problem is to learn how to dis
tribute what We produce so that we
can wipe out this black plague Of
| the Goth century"-undercon
ton. Ahead of us is job of ma.
tional pioneering" which has barely
been started.
Hul's Policy Helps.
The trade agreements policy Of
Mr.. Hull is excellent; we need all the
foreign outlets We can get both for
our farm and our industrial prod
ucts, But there's tremendous DO.
| tential market here at home beside
which the foreign market at It's best
shrinks into insignif1cance. Mr..
Perkins tells some of the possibilities
from the viewpoint Of the farmer
with the mis-called surplus" A
few Of his figures will illustrate the
point.
In 1856 nearly two-thirds of all
| the families in the United States
had incomes of less than $500. The
average for this group was 1926 a
year-$69 a month for the whole
family. That" says Mr.. Perkins,
sis the story of underconsumption
in one figure"
Some utopian figures could be
given, but let's see what would hap
pen if all the families getting less
than $100 month in 1885 had been
able to raise their incomes to that
level, The increase In expenditures
for food would have been 81 ,90O, ,000,-
600. The national food bill would
have been increased over IA per cent,
farmers would have received directly
nearly billion more in income. the
extra demand would have increased
their income by large additional
amount, the improvement in the
farmers status would have con-
tributed to the general we'll being,
industrial unemployment would have
been decreased.
To provide jobs for the jobless In
private industry and so end under
consumption-that's the crux OF the
great economic problem that be-
devils us. and none of those holding
or seeking national power should be
allowed to forget it.