Evening star., 1944-05-28

In much Of the discussion of the en-
ployment problem, too great stress is
laid on manufacturing as direct source
Of jobs. Manufacturing, it is true, has
q key place in our economy; it must ex-
pand If we are to have the generally
expanding economy required for reason
ably full employment But manufac-
turing in itself, under normal condi-
tions, can be counted upon to provide
only about one-fourth of all the jobs
In the country.
The figures for 1910 tell the story.
The total number of employed persons
in that year, according to the Bureau of
the Census, was As, ,166,083. Manufactur-
ing accounted for roughly 10,500,000 of
these, or % per cent. Then came agri-
culture, forestry and fishing with $780,
600, or 10 per cent; wholesale and retail
trade, 100000, or II per cent; personal
services, 100000, or 8 per cent; pro-
fessional and related services, 100000,
or per cent; construction, 100000, or
per cent; Government, 1,750,000, or 4
per cent; finance, insurance and real
estate, 100000, or 8 per cent; mining,
100000, or per cent; business and re-
pair services, $4,000, or 2 per cent;
amusement, recreation and related serv-
ices, 100000, or per cent; industry not
reported, per cent.
Another tabulation can be made from
Bureau of the Census figures to show
that Of the total number of employed
persons In 1910, more than 100000, or
about is per cent, were not directly de-
pendent for their jobs on private enter
prise as 1t is usually understood. OF
these, some 2,300,000 were in domestic
service; 1,500 900 in educational services;
385.0o0 in charitable, religious and mem
bership organizations; 10000 in medical
and other health services, excluding
employers and workers on their own
account; 10000 in legal, engineering
and miscellaneous professional services,
excluding employers and workers on
their own account; 100000 in the postal
service; 100000 in other lines of public
service
Other Job Sources Vital.
Figures such as these carry their own
warning against over -simplification of
the employment problem. Great though
the contribution that can be made by
manufacturing, we must look for job op-
portunities in other segments of the
economy as well. Certainly we cannot
expect the large industrial corporations
alone to solve the problem; even if they
possessed and brought into play a de-
gree Of ocial-mindedness beyond any,
thing reasonably to be expected in the
competitive system, a huge portion of
the task would be outside their reach.
A recent bulletin of the United States
Chamber Of Commerce, written by Prof.
Emerson P. Schmidt of the University of
Minnesota suggests that in thinking of
the employment problem we think
especially of the 100000 separate busi-
ness establishments of the United
States, not including the farmers, which
In 1910 provided jobs for one or more
persons. Primarily, says Prof. Schmidt,
1t Is to these we must look for Job out
lets rather than to manufacture, agri-
culture or distribution.
Suppose, he says, 1--WE had $4,000 900
unemployed and could bring about con-
ditions favorable for expansion; if, then,
each Of these establishments could add,
on the average, just four persons to its
payroll the problem of mass unemploy-
ment would be substantially solved. This
indicates the Importance of attacking
unemployment in fundamental sense
In way that will tap the energy and
incentive of each of the millions of job
makers to adopt an expansionist pro-
gram and to develop ways of maintain
ing regularity of production and en-
ployment."
Little Business Important.
In other words, any attack on the un-
employment problem should carry with
1t incentives to little business.
American economic life," the PAM
phlet continues, lis truly a complex
mosaic of activity. Each person, each