Evening star., 1961-04-04

duction in the current unem-
ployment rate Of close to 7 per
cent to a normal" rate of 4
per cent by. say, the middle of
next year demands?
1t demands the creation in
the next year Of a minimum of
4 million additional jobs and,
quite probably, 5 million new
jobs.
To achieve a society in which
only 4 of every 100 able and
willing to work are seeking jobs
in mid-1962, we must raise the
total Of employment from un-
der 65 million now to the 10
million level.
To achieve the national goal
Of maximum employment, we
must raise the value of all
goods and services from the
present level Of slightly over
$500 billion to $530-535 bill
lion by the year en- dand to
$3.50 billion and more within
18 months.
1t implies a major upswing
in spending on new plants and
equipment and modernization
of factories and machines.
More specifically, business
spending on plants and equip
ment must rise above the an
nual rate of $35 billion sched-
uled for late this year and past
1957's record of SGT billion.
Then, armies Of workers will
be absorbed into the building
Of the plants and machines, and
into their operation to turn out
new products. new processes.
More Building Needed
1t implies a great rebound in
construction of houses; a rea-
sonable forecast would be more
than IA million new houses
a year. It implies a quickening
of activity in other basic in
duStries, too-steel, autos, ap-
liances, etc.
1t surely implies mounting
spending at all levels of Gov
ernment in cooperation with
industry. It implies steadily ris-
ing spending by families bene-
fitting from the new jobs, fatter
paychecks.
When a fortnight ago, Presi-
dent Kennedy declared, I'VE
have to reduce" the current
percentage of jobless in Ameri-
ca, and II hope that we can re-
duce it down, to 4 per cent, F"
his comment was hailed as wise
and restrained the Nation over.
For a 4 per cent unemployment
rate, it is believed, would be
sufficient to avert a scramble
for workers and, thus, the
danger Of an explosive wage
price spiral.
Challenge Cited
But only when you break
down that deceptively simple
sentence, IT hope that we can
reduce it down to 4 per cent"
do you grasp what even this
modest target means. And, in
cidentally. my minimum pro-
lection Of 4 million additional
jobs by mid-1962 is conserva-
tive, for it does not consider
the impact Of rising productiv-
Iity-meaning the capacity of
each worker to turn out more
goods per hour. When the
effects of this on employment
is weighed, the number of new
jobs we must create to absorb
our unemployed and new
workers easily could be S mil
ion.
What does this all boil down
to? 1t boils down to the fun
damental challenge to us to
make sure we move now into
a new cycle of strong and pur-
poSeful growth.
The groundwork for renewed
advance has been laid in many
spheres but it would be folly
for us to let it go at that. There
is no question that industry
would spur its spending on es-
sential modernization of plants
if Congress would give it in
centives via tax reform. There
is no doubt that our growth
would be given great impetus
by legislation to stimulate OBJ
viously desirable private and
public programs. We simply
cannot continue limping along
far below our productive ca
pacity and denying to millions