Printer Friendly

A jobs program for the '90s.

Economic growth is expected to bring with it an increase in wages and jobs. Yet, in the current economy, we see the possibility of a "jobless recovery" from recession, or of reduced unemployment concurrent with slipping of real wages. What's going on?

In their concern to become lean, mean, and internationally competitive, United States corporations are systematically cutting jobs, not creating them. As an American Management Association survey concluded in September 1993, "There's no end in sight to the downsizing that is sweeping through corporate America." This is a problem that will stretch well beyond the 1994 or 1996 election cycles. The AFL-CIO News reported early in 1994 that "according to analysts at a Chicago job placement firm, 645 companies have announced layoffs of more than 600,000 workers for 1994; that amounts to more layoffs than for all 1991, a recession year." In January alone, announced staff cutbacks totalled 108,946, a record for a single month, and the total of 143,564 for the first two months of 1994 exceeded the record January-February totals the previous year.(1)

The economic climate in the US is clearly changing. The rate of profit on capital investments has decreased significantly in recent years, from 10 to 15 percent in the early 1970s to 6.8 percent in 1993. Profit-maximizing managers have turned to squeezing from factory labor an average of 3.8 percent more output per hour from 1990 to 1993, investing (when they do invest) in replacement technology rather than new plant, investing overseas or in high-tech industries employing relatively few workers, and relentlessly consolidating and eliminating jobs.(2)

Corporate downsizing is not a temporary fad; it is a structural, long-term trend. At the same time, the number of unemployed persons--a better yardstick than unemployment percentage--is increasing. Between November 1991 and January 1994, the number of Americans officially designated as long-term unemployed (meaning they had been out of work for six months or longer) rose from 1.3 to 1.7 million, a 31 percent increase. And, unofficial estimates of the total number of persons unemployed are staggering. Former Senator William Proxmire writes: "Current 6.8 percent unemployment idles nearly 10 million American workers. It discourages 1 million more from trying to find a job. It forces 3 million who want and need full-time employment to work part time (usually 15 to 20 hours a week)."(3)

Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich puts the number of part-time workers who would rather be working full time at 6 million. Worldwide, according to the International Labor Organization, there are 120 million people who are out of work and approximately 700 million who are underemployed. Further, the number of those unemployed and underemployed still does not adequately measure the number of persons who are in poverty because of a lack of good jobs. More than 9.4 million working Americans have incomes under the federal poverty guidelines, with the result that more than 30 million persons live in homes "where paychecks and poverty go hand in hand."(4)
WHO'S CUTTING JOBS?

Since January 1, 1993, the following companies have announced the elimination
of more than 5,000 jobs.

General Motors                    69,650
Sears, Roebuck                    50,000
IBM                               38,500
AT&T                              33,525
Boeing                            31,000
GTE                               27,975
Nynex                             22,000
Phillip Morris                    14,000
Procter & Gamble                  13,000
Woolworth                         13,000
Martin Marietta                   12,060
Eastman Kodak                     12,000
Xerox                             11,200
McDonnell Douglas                 10,966
Raytheon                          10,624
Pacific Telesis                   10,000
General Electric                   9,825
Westinghouse                       9,345
US West                            9,000
Pratt & Whitney                    8,514
Scott Paper                        8,300
Bristol-Myers Squibb               7,600
American Airlines                  8,769
Hughes Missile Systems             6,000
RJR Nabisco                        6,000
Phar-Mor                           5,962
Du Pont                            5,700
Texas Instruments                  5,675
Lockheed                           5,600

Total:                           475,790

Source: "Job Losses Don't Let Up Even as Hard Times Ease," New York Times,
March 22, 1994.


Clinton's Answer

While the Clinton Administration likes to emphasize a reduction in unemployment rates, nevertheless it does candidly recognize that economic recovery may reduce, not increase, the number of jobs. "We used to think that jobs and the economy were the same thing," Secretary Reich said. "But we have learned in recent years that the paper economy and the people's economy are not always the same thing....There is now a much greater sensitivity that the challenge of creating good jobs must be dealt with on its own terms and not by relying on economic growth alone."(5)

The President himself has stated: "There is a great insecurity that productivity, for the first time, may be a job threat, not a job creator."(6) But rather than condemn corporate downsizing with its deliberate job destruction, both Clinton and Reich offer job training as the answer to structural unemployment. This perspective is a snare and delusion.

In the first place, the training promoted by the Clinton Administration encourages workers to disregard traditional job classifications. Efforts to merge job classifications are efforts to decrease the number of workers needed to complete a job. The effect of this kind of training is to facilitate corporate downsizing, not to resist it.

In the second place, retraining for dislocated workers is effective only when there are jobs at the end of the training. The New York Times reports that in Springfield, Missouri, the jobs that "hundreds of former Zenith workers have been training for [after their plant moved to Mexico] often pay much less than their former jobs, or simply do not exist."(7)

Secretary Reich assumes that there is "a surplus of high-skill jobs awaiting workers who undergo training." But there isn't. Indeed, one in five college graduates in the 1980s (as compared to one in ten in the 1970s) ended up working at a job that did not require a college degree.(8)

Reich, the high-tech trainer, is also Reich, advocate of labor-management cooperation: a system that effectively coopts the independence of labor unions. Companies that sponsor the joint labor-management formats favored by Secretary Reich are, not surprisingly, often the same companies that practice downsizing. They are able to do so the more savagely because the union has thrown away its weapons in advance.(9)

But Aren't There More Jobs Now?

Is the situation turning around? Official figures show that 1.6 million new private-sector jobs were created in 1993, and that 3.8 million new jobs had been created under the Clinton Presidency as of July 1994.(10) Despite an increase in the number of jobs, the "typical American household saw its income decline in 1993, and more than a million Americans fell into poverty." From 1989 to 1993, the typical American household lost $2,344--seven percent--in annual income. The number of those under the federal "poverty line" increased from 13.1 percent in 1989 to 15.1 percent in 1993. The Census reports record levels of inequality, with the top fifth of US households earning 48.2 percent of the nation's income while the bottom fifth earned just 3.6 percent.(11) According to Secretary Reich, "America is in danger of splitting into a two-tiered society. America has the most unequal distribution of income in any industrialized nation in the world. We cannot have a prosperous or stable society if these trends continue."(12)

How can one explain increasing poverty and inequality of income, while apparent job growth goes on at the same time? The answer is like the answer to other Zen koans: the "jobs" that are being lost through corporate downsizing are not the same as the "jobs" that are increasing in number. An estimated 21 million workers in the United States now have part-time jobs. According to the Youngstown Vindicator, part-time employees "are usually paid about 60 percent of the hourly scale of full-timers and often don't get any fringe benefits." In 1992, 84.4 percent of workers aged 16 to 17 and 56.3 percent of workers aged 65 or older worked part time, and women made up 65 percent of all part-time workers.(13)

If leased, contracted, and temporary employees are added, this "contingent" workforce totals about 34 million, or one in every four workers. The number of such contingent workers in the United States is expected to double by the year 2000, and the percentage of contingent workers in the total labor force is growing about twice as fast as is the labor force as a whole.(14)

The new contingent workforce is channeled to employment by a plethora of new temporary employment agencies. One Youngstown-area job seeker, Steve Burnett, reports:

Every summer for the past five years I have come home--to the Mahoning Valley--to-find work. My first and last stop was always the classified section. I've had bad jobs and I've had good, but each summer I found something through the paper, on my own. My experience this summer [of 1994], however, was different. The paper carried the usual restaurant help and lawn care ads, but virtually everything else--most factory, warehouse, and office jobs that looked like they might hold the potential for more than minimum wage--were advertised through a temporary service. For the first time I could not find a decent job on my own. I was forced to go through an agency.(15)

According to Manpower, Inc., 90 percent of all United States companies now use temporary agencies.(16) As of only a few years ago, the typical temp was a young female, and her typical place of employment was an office. Temporary help was an efficient way to cover for an ill or vacationing employee on a short-term basis. But today, due to the desire for a readily available and disposable workforce, companies are finding that temporary agencies offer a convenient way to do much if not all of their hiring. And temp help is no longer necessarily short term. More and more positions held by permanent employees before downsizing are now given to a series of temps on a permanent basis. In the words of a manager's guide to temp services, "the cost of temporary help is always lower than the transaction costs or hidden costs associated with putting a permanent employee on the payroll."(17)

Burnett points out the result of this new practice for what is left of union labor in a place like Youngstown. Area employers such as Easco Aluminum, a medium-size aluminum processor, respect the rights of their older unionized workers but hire all new employees through an agency.

Thus, especially during peak months, groups of permanent unionized employees work alongside groups of temporary workers. These people earn as little as half the wage of the unionized employee, enjoy no benefits, and have no job security past the next day. The unionized employee sees the constant influx of temporary workers and is thus constantly reminded of the tenuousness of his/her own position. The temp sees the union members with their solid wages and job security and is inspired to keep in mind the "possibility of full-time employment" always vaguely promised by the company.(18)

The temp's only hope of becoming a union member is to impress the foreman, Burnett argues. In this way, unions become less a right than a benefit. It is up to the employer who is allowed to stay and who is not. The union is thus associated with the company rather than with the workforce. And, on the shop floor, the dichotomy is between new temporary worker and older unionized worker, not between worker and foreman.

Where Will the Money Come from?

To address the problem of 10 million unemployed persons the private sector has no plans to employ requires a significant amount of money. Sadly, the Clinton Administration, for all its talk about the problem, is likely to be of little help.

Therefore, we shall have to do the job ourselves, as grassroots activists. This does not mean that all the money for what we do must come from poor and working people. On the contrary, while self-help initiatives are important, in themselves they cannot possibly provide enough capital to wipe out unemployment.

We'll need federal money, but we must design the strategies for getting the money and we must decide how to use it once it is in our hands. Several viable strategies have been proposed that could generate a substantial sum of money for job creation.

1. The Peace Dividend. "It would make sense to start with where the money is," says the Reverend Jesse Jackson. "The Pentagon still consumes more than half of all discretionary spending. This year we will spend about $274 billion on defense, more than the average Cold War budget. The Russians--with the next biggest military budget in the world--will spend less than $40 billion."

This money cut from the defense budget could be spent on domestic programs. Jackson argues that:

The first priority should be to expand investments vital to our future. Children must be given a healthy start. We must provide them with the best primary and secondary education possible. We need to make college affordable for all who qualify. We should join every other industrial nation in providing apprenticeship training for those who don't go to college. Our cities are a disgrace that can no longer be ignored. Investments in fast trains and other mass transit are central to a prosperous economy. By fulfilling the President's campaign promise to rebuild America's infrastructure, we can help areas hurt by defense cuts and put people back to work.(19)

Proposed cuts in defense spending have many people rightly worried about jobs. But the reality is, the money can be better spent for job creation in other, more productive sectors. The Youngstown National Priorities Program has spelled out specifically what deeper cuts in military spending could mean in our community, and the results are relevant elsewhere. Youngstown businesses and residents paid $59 million for the military in 1992 and will pay an estimated $260.2 million during the next five years. Meanwhile, Youngstown receives $28 million less today than it did in 1980 for revenue sharing, community development block grants, job training, and anti-poverty programs.(20)

In addition, the Congressional Research Service has estimated what it would mean for Youngstown and other local communities if $3 billion in military spending was shifted to such activities as state and local education, highway and street construction, and construction of sewer facilities. After deducting for the loss of jobs that would be caused by cutting $3 billion from defense-related activity, the CRS estimates the net addition to employment in the private and public sector to be 18,762 jobs.(21)

Ironically, this most obvious source of money seems to be politically inaccessible. President Clinton put the last nail in the coffin of the peace dividend in his State of the Union speech on January 25, 1994:

This year, many people urged us to cut our defense spending further to pay for other government programs. I said no. The budget I sent to Congress draws the line against further defense cuts.

Even the New York Times was moved to editorialize that "the Administration refused to reduce Pentagon programs enough, despite the end of the cold war....Unless Mr. Clinton finds the courage to trim defense, he will be forced to shortchange domestic investment for years to come."(22)

The Clinton Administration is spending $2.8 billion more on the militaryary in 1994 than was spent in 1993, more than Richard Nixon spent two decades ago, and more than the rest of the world combined.(23) While the peace dividend seems politically dead today, we should never omit from our presentations about jobs the simple theme that a solution to jobless recovery is available: cut defense spending, and spend the same money on public works and public service jobs.(24)

2. Taxing the rich. Another solution we should never fail to include is taxing the rich--an obvious if increasingly politically unlikely option. The nation's sole socialist Congressperson, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, together with the House Progressive Caucus, has been assembling a major jobs bill. Sanders reports that the jobs bill projects $62 billion annually in investment over the next two years to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. As to financing, he states, "We propose paying for these expenditures by progressive tax increases, asking the wealthy--whose incomes increased dramatically during the 1980s--to pay their fair share of taxes." He believes the bill would create between 1.2 and 2.5 million jobs in each of two years. Among Sanders' plans is allocating $20 billion (over two years) for rebuilding roads and bridges, $3.2 billion for mass transit, $2 billion for rails, $2 billion for airports, $8 billion for water and sewage upgrades, $8 billion to start cleaning up environmental hazards, $6 billion for modernizing school buildings, and $8 billion in community development block grants. The jobs bill also puts $6.2 billion into job training, $8 billion into adequately funded Head Start, $5 billion into hiring additional teachers' aides, and $3 billion into meeting critical health needs.(25)

There is, of course, little possibility that this bill will pass in the foreseeable future. But assuming it is indeed introduced in Congress in January 1995, it could provide an important vehicle whereby activists in all the Youngstowns of the United States could relate to one another in addressing the jobs crisis.

3. The Rohatyn Plan. Investment banker Felix Rohatyn puts forward a plan that may be more politically viable in the current context. Rohatyn, whose solid reputation in the financial community is built on his role in saving New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970s, believes that our economy "has forgotten how to create jobs," and that "it is government's responsibility to step into the jobs breach because private institutions alone can't handle the problem."(26)

He proposes a ten-year public works program, financed outside of the regular budget, which could create 1 million jobs a year. He described it in a speech at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard as:

a large-scale public works program ... federally financed and supplementing state and local programs. A $250 billion ten-year program would be a fraction of what is needed to bring this country's infrastructure to satisfactory condition and should be considered as a minimum first step; it could create about 1 million jobs annually and could serve as one component of a defense-conversion effort. High speed rail; mass transit; airport construction and many others would be a more effective use of defense contractors' capabilities than building redundant Seawolf submarines. The use of some military bases, which are presently scheduled to be closed, for CCC-type programs to train inner-city youngsters, would be another benefit. The financing for such a program could be separated from the federal budget, with special issues of infrastructure bonds, secured by modest increases in gasoline taxes or other recurrent revenues. These would pay off the bonds in 30-40 years and could make them eligible for investment by private and public pension funds, which now amount to about $3 trillion and will probably double in size over the next ten years.(27)

This proposal takes the financing issue out of discussions of the jobs problem. If the creation of public works and public service jobs cannot be financed by diverting general tax revenues presently spent on defense, it can be financed a different way: by guaranteeing investment by private and public pension funds. Government guarantee of non-governmental investment is the way the Administration promotes economic development overseas, for example in South Africa. It could do the same at home.

Rohatyn's proposal mentions only construction and related physical work. The number of jobs generated would increase significantly if service jobs were included as well. A Congressional survey of federal counter-cyclical spending programs since 1962 found that "public service" jobs are in some respects preferable to "public works" jobs.

Public service programs are thought to have certain advantages over public works programs. In addition to the quicker start-up typical of public service jobs programs, relatively more of their expenditures go toward wages, which means that more jobs can be created per dollar of spending (i.e., "more bang for the buck"). Public service employment programs also tend to reach a broader spectrum of workers by employing relatively more low-skilled and unemployed workers than do public works programs.(28)

A campaign to create more publicly funded service jobs might grow naturally from efforts to save existing social service safety nets. It could include projects for the repair and rehabilitation of inner-city housing, provision of free day care for all who need it (including those whom the President's proposed welfare reform will force out of the home into the jobs market), and teachers' aides and after-school tutoring (along with physical rehabilitation of buildings) in our schools.(29)

Other analysts go further in stressing the job-creating potential of pension funds. Linda Tarr-Whelan, president of the Washington-based Center for Policy Alternatives, told a conference in 1994:

Pension funds and other institutional investors have the potential to change the face of community economic development. If state public employee pension systems alone invested just 2 percent of their portfolios in economically targeted investments, this would yield $100 billion dollars' worth of investment capital to create jobs and growth in capital-starved neighborhoods. Without investing in our communities, there is no real chance of creating long-term stable growth in the national economy.(30)

Radicals like myself might prefer to tax the rich, but there could nonetheless be a useful consensus for government-guaranteed pension investment that could generate a sizable source of job-creation funds.

Obstacles and False Answers

A fundamental obstacle in moving toward a program of government investment--or even government-guaranteed private investment--in jobs is ideological. It is the conviction, or alleged conviction, of many Americans that anything funded by the government must be centralized, bureaucratic, and wasteful. Thus, in the 1994 health care-debate, one often-expressed opinion was that a single-payer plan is obviously best, but unacceptable to the American people because of its "socialist" appearance.

Legal services workers like myself are in an opportune position to rebut this nonsense. We know, from experience, that money can be appropriated by Congress, allocated to offices in the field on the basis of objective criteria, administered in communities by more-or-less democratic boards of directors, monitored to assure compliance with national statutes and regulations, and expended to provide a needed service free of charge. If legal services can be provided in this way, so might health services. So, indeed, might a variety of goods and services now offered to the community (if offered at all) only by hierarchically organized, publiclyunaccountable, profit-maximizing corporations.

Jobs created through government investment, it should be noted, ought to be permanent--whether they are to provide housing repair and rehabilitation, day care, teachers' aides and tutors for the schools, or other community services. I condemn the assumption that privately funded jobs are the only "real" jobs and that publicly funded jobs must be temporary. Similarly, I oppose compromise with the profit motive as embodied in schemes like enterprise zones and tax abatements.

Tax abatements are the chosen economic-development instrument of area chambers of commerce. They shift the tax burden from rich corporations to homeowners much less able to pay. They impoverish school budgets in the name of economic growth. And they do so without any real enforcement mechanism to ensure that there are at least some jobs created or retained in exchange for the community's sacrifices.

At a minimum, communities should add legally enforcible conditions to any enterprise zone or tax abatement schemes. These conditions can begin to spell out a charter for the socially responsible practice of business. They can require that unemployed persons in the community must be hired first. They can stipulate that, should the company ever wish to leave town, the community must have a first option on purchasing the assets. Should the company leave during the period of the agreed-on tax abatement, the company can be required to pay back any subsidies already received. Without such conditions, tax abatements are a poor investment of public money.

What the Plan Would Look Like

Someday, free-market fetishism will come to be seen as an anthropological curiosity, and society will recognize an elementary duty to give work to all its members.

When that time comes, folk will be astonished at how simple and straightforward it will be to set up publicly funded jobs programs that provide permanent, socially useful jobs, with good pay and benefits.

Here's one scenario for how to go about it. A community congress could be convened in every geographical region. Invitees would especially include entities trying to meet social needs on a self-help or nonprofit basis. Persons active in home repair and rehabilitation, day care, tutoring, and the like would be asked: Suppose you had enough money to do the job properly for every one who needed it, free of charge, what would you do?

In Youngstown, the community I know best, here are the beginnings of the answer to the question, in the areas of housing and day care. Less important than the specific jobs created is that work be based on local needs and that it build on local resources.

Home Maintenance and Rehabilitation. According to HUD, 13 percent of all owner and renter units in the City of Youngstown or approximately 4,630 units are "suitable for rehabilitation." Allianza, a Youngstown non-profit housing project, believes the figure is actually about 7,000. Interfaith Home Maintenance Service has waiting lists for various kinds of individual repairs that yield a total of about 22,500 needed repairs in Youngstown.(31)

In the Interfaith program, one supervisor provides on-the-job training to two or three trainees in all areas of maintenance work. In two years of work/training, the trainees are able to learn all the skills necessary to complete a home-repair project. During 1993, Interfaith's nine full-time workers completed 898 total repairs, or about 100 repairs per person per year. To meet the need for 22,500 repairs, then, about 225 new jobs are needed.

Even more jobs are needed for the rehabilitation of entire homes. Allianza requires about three months to rehabilitate a house completely, using a crew of 10 people. Thus, each Allianza worker can be said to rehabilitate about 1.2 homes per year. If the number of Youngstown homes requiring rehabilitation is set halfway between the HUD and Allianza estimates, at 5,800, this task would employ about 500 over a ten-year period.

A comparable program, the Southwest Gardens Housing Rehab/Jobs Program, has been developed by Robert Damewood of Northwestern Legal Services of Farrell, Penn., in cooperation with the Coalition for Black Trade Unionists. This plan proposes to rehabilitate 35 homes over a two-year period, employing six workers in each of five training areas. The CBTU has undertaken to place the 30 participants in two-year apprenticeships upon graduation.

In total, about 725 jobs (225 for single repairs and 500 for the rehabilitation of entire homes) are needed right now to address the need for home repair and rehabilitation in the City of Youngstown.

Day Care. Youngstown State University, in a survey of the 61 child-care centers in Mahoning County, found that there is no shortage of day care for families able to pay for private services. Low-income families, on the other hand, "experience a double bind: child care is needed in order to work or attend training, but the needed care is not available."(32) A social worker with the Youngstown Community Action Center and Head Start reports that about half of the 1,500 families enrolled in Head Start are looking for day care so that one parent or both parents can go back to school or take a job, but are unable to find affordable services. The Organizacion Civica y Cultural Hispana Americana also reports that there are about 1,000 Latino families in Mahoning County who need expanded day-care services. When waiting lists and estimates of need from other centers are added in, there is a current reported need for 2,500 additional day-care slots in the Youngstown area.

One worker is required for every six additional children who receive day care. Applying this ratio, about 416 new day-care jobs are presently needed in the Youngstown area. The creation of slots for 2,500 children would also demand physical construction of around 25 new facilities, increasing the number of jobs that would result from the entire undertaking. And if the Clinton Administration welfare reform plan is enacted, the need for day care will be still greater.

Thus, in just two areas of social need--housing repair and rehabilitation and day care--there is a potential need in the City of Youngstown for approximately 2,700 jobs--725 in housing, 416 to meet existing day-care needs, and 1,600 to meet day-care needs arising from welfare reform. Clearly, the full social need--from bridge-building to public schooling--is much greater, but could follow along the same lines.

What is critical is that communities decide, democratically and locally, how to spend federally allocated funding. Money would come from the federal level (as in the old "welfare state" model) but administration of the money (as in the legal services model) would be decentralized. As even the very preliminary examination of the Youngstown area shows, it would be imminently possible to build on and reinforce the infrastructure of local service delivery and economic development rather than sweeping it away with a federal program. With federal funding available, each community can identify its own needs and the vehicle for fulfilling them.

This job-creation program is a long-range dream. Yet we are faced with a problem that won't go away.

If you are interested in pursuing this issue fur ther, contact me at 1694 Timbers Court, Niles, Ohio 44446, tel: (216) 744-3196.

Notes

1 AMA report cited in, "Survey: 47 Percent of Companies Reduced Staff in Past Year." Youngstown Vindicator, Sept. 23, 1993; AFL-CIO News quoted in "The AFL-CIO and the Jobless." The Labor Educator. January/February 1994: "Job Losses Don't Let Up Even as Hard Times Ease." New York Times, Mar. 22, 1994.

2 "Corporate Spending Booms, but Jobs Stagnate." New York Times, June 16, 1994; "In Mississippi, a Clue to Low-Inflation Economics," New York Times, May 31, 1994: "US Corporations Expanding Abroad at a Quicker Pace," New York Times, July 25, 1994.

3 Bob Herbert, "Counting the Jobless," New York Times, Feb. 23, 1994; Proxmire cited in, "US Should Match Europes Shorter Workweek," New York Times, Nov. 5, 1993.

4 BNA Labor Relations Reporter, Feb. 14, 1994; "Working Poor Are Among Us," Youngstown Vindicator, Mar. 13, 1994.

5 "World's Big Economies Turn to the Jobs Issue," New York Times, Mar. 14, 1994.

6 "President Offers Job Prescriptions." New York Times, Mar. 15, 1994.

7 "After the Jobs Went South: A Town Finds Pitfalls in a Retraining Effort," New York Times. Nov. 6, 1993.

8 John Judis, "Train in Vain," In These Times, Jan. 24. 1994.

9 Examples include Xerox, hailed by both government and AFL-CIO leaders as a showcase for labor-management partnership, Nynex, and General Motors. "Xerox to Fire 10,000 Employees Despite 'Partnership' with Union," The Labor Educator. January/February 1994.

10 "Optimistic Report on US Economy." San Francisco Chronicle. July 15, 1994.

11 BNA Labor Relations Reporter. Feb. 7, 1994.

12 "Census Report Sees Incomes in Decline And More Poverty." New York Times, Oct. 7. 1994.

13 "Jobs: Part-time Issue Moves to Front." Youngstown Vindicator. May 31. 1994; "Dunlop Group Discusses Contingent Workers." BNA Labor Relations Reporter. August 1, 1994.

14 "Jobs: Part-time Issue Moves to Front." May 31, 1994: Deborahann Smith, Temp: How to Survive and Thrive in the World of Temporary Employment (Boston: Shambhala. 1994); William M. Lewis and Nancy H. Molloy. How to Choose and Use Temporary Services (New York: Amacom. 1991).

15 Steve Burnett, "Recent Effects of the New Role of Temporary Agencies in Mahoning Valley Employment Trends." 1994.

16 Manpower, Inc., The Temporary Help lndustry and Manpower Temporary Services (Milwaukee: Manpower, 1988).

17 Lewis and Molloy, 1991. The same source cites the US Chamber of Commerce for the proposition that the hidden cost (benefits, unemployment insurance, recruiting costs, etc.) for an employee who earns $400 a week is $171.18 per week.

18 Burnett, 1994.

19 Jesse Jackson, "Inman Gives Clinton Opening," Youngstown Vindicator, Jan. 24, 1994.

20 "Group Seeks Funds Shift from Military to Cities," Youngstown Vindicator, Feb. 9, 1994.

21 Congressional Research Service, "The Employment Effects of Shifting Three Billion Dollars from Defense to State and Local Government-related Activities," Feb. 1, 1993.

22 "More Is the Pity at the Pentagon," New York Times, Feb. 9, 1994.

23 Lawrence J. Korb, "Shock Therapy for the Pentagon," New York Times, Feb. 15, 1994. A memorandum from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Feb. 11, 1994, detailed the amount spent on defense by the US and its "potential adversaries" identified by the Pentagon:
US                $290.7 billion
Cuba                    1.2
Libya                   1.5
Syria                   1.1
Iraq                    8.6
Iran                    4.3
N. Korea                5.5


24 See the special section on the peace dividend, with articles by Robert L. Borosage, S.M. Miller and Coretta Scott King, in Social Policy, Spring 1990.

25 Bernard Sanders, "Here's A Plan To Create Jobs and Rebuild America," Labor Notes, Oct. 1994.

26 Hobart Rowen, "How to Create a Million New Jobs," Washington Post, Nov. 26, 1993.

27 Felix Rohatyn, "The American Economy and the Rest of the World: Two Sides of the Same Coin," Nov. 30, 1993. State and local pension funds control one-third of the nation's total pension fund assets. BNA Labor Relations Reporter, Jan. 10, 1994.

28 Congressional Research Service, "Unemployment, Dislocated Workers, and Job Creation," July 6, 1992.

29 "Copping Out on Human Services," Allegheny Socialist, Dec. 1993-Jan. 1994. My sister-in-law Cushing Dolbeare, a housing expert, concluded 20 years ago that adequate repair and rehabilitation of the nation's housing stock alone could wipe out unemployment.

30 BNA Labor Relations Reporter, Feb. 21, 1994.

31 City of Youngstown Planning Dept., "Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Report," Jan. 1993, Tables 1B, 1C; Benjamin Sachs, "A Jobs Program for Youngstown."

32 Youngstown State University, Center for Human Services Development, Mahoning, Trumbull and Mercer Counties Child Care Study, p. 20.

Staughton Lynd is a lawyer and historian in Youngstown, Ohio.
COPYRIGHT 1994 Social Policy Magazine
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lynd, Staughton
Publication:Social Policy
Date:Sep 22, 1994
Words:5719
Previous Article:Community organizing in the conservative '80s and beyond.
Next Article:New paths to jobs and services.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |