Representative REECE. The sales of these stores have a very important relationship, however, to the total sales. Dr. LUBIN. You have here an industry sharply affected by durablegoods production. (The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 32" and appears on this page. The statistical data on which this chart is based are included in the appendix on p. 211.) 1919 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 SOURCE-BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD INDEX 120 100 80 60 40 20 Dr. LUBIN. The bulk of transportation on rails is heavy stuff. Of course, the percentage going over rails has been getting less and less,. but the effect of the importance of the durable goods industry upon the railroads is shown here very definitely, where the drop is almost proportionate to the drop in the heavy goods industries, with the rise following pretty closely the rise in the heavy goods industry. Whether or not we ever get back to the point where we will be carrying as much freight in terms of carloads as we were before 1929, due to the road situation of this country and the trucks, of course, is a question. The CHAIRMAN. If it is convenient to you, Dr. Lubin, we will takea recess at this time until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, a recess was taken until 2 the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION p. m. of The committee reconvened at 2 p. m. in the Caucus Room, Senate Office Building, on the expiration of the recess. TESTIMONY OF ISADOR LUBIN, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.Resumed The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will please come to order. We are ready to begin, Dr. Lubin. Dr. LUBIN. Mr. Chairman, if I may sum up this morning's discussion, I would like to emphasize the fact that my purpose thus far has been to show what the loss has been to the American people as a result of the failure of our economic system to function smoothly. As I pointed out, the total cumulative loss in national income over the period of 9 years adjusted to a fixed price level, was $133,000,000,000. I would like to point out further that if you make no allowance for the change in price level that figure becomes $225,000,000,000. In other words, if you took the total losses for each year and added them together, and did not adjust them for changes in price level, you would get the latter figure. The CHAIRMAN. What was that sum, without the adjustment? Dr. LUBIN. It was $225,000,000,000. I attempted to point further to the segments of the economy that failed to function, and attempted to point out further how the loss was divided among the wage and salaried workers of the country, the farmers and the investors. I pointed out further that in the manufacturing industries the great losses occurred in the durable goods industries, namely, those that produce the commodities that are slowly consumed as for example, machinery, plant equipment, refrigerators, automobiles, and things of that sort. EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN DEPRESSION Dr. LUBIN. The effect of these shifts in the economy is shown in this chart, called "Nonagricultural employment in the United States." (The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 33" and appears on p. 44. The statistical data on which this chart is based are included in the appendix on p. 211.) Dr. LUBIN. This chart depicts the number of people employed in the manufacturing, mining, construction, transportation, and publicutility industries. You will note that there was a decline in employment up to 1933. Then an upturn took place, followed by a fall, so that by 1938 we have 12,802,000 people employed in manufacturing, mining, construction, etc., as compared with nearly 17,000,000 in these industries in 1929. On the other hand the number of people employed in trade, finance, services, and the government, was almost the same in 1929 as it is today. The actual figure in September, 1929 was about 13,000,000, and the figure today is about 12,500,000. The number of proprietors, self-employed and casual workers, actually increased as compared with 1929. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, before you leave that, whether you have made any break-down of the middle group, namely trade, finance, and government? The question I have in mind is whether or not there has been a large increase in the numbers employed by government. Dr. LUBIN. We have the actual figures of the numbers employed. There has been a perceptible increase in the number employed by government, but the increase in government employment as pared with the total rise of all employment has been relatively small. We have the exact figures.1 Senator KING. Isn't it a fact that there are more than 2,000,000 permanent employees on the Government pay rolls today, to say nothing of the enormous number in W. P. A. and the other organizations, so that the increase in the number of persons on the Governmentpay roll or paid out of the Public Treasury is very much greater than it was in 1929 or any preceding period? Dr. LUBIN. These figures do not include W. P. A. or C. C. C. They include regular Government employees on the regular pay rolls of the 1 See the following table: Government employment (included in total nonagricultural employment estimate) Government, and city governments, State governments, county, municipal, and others. They do not include those on relief projects. Mr. ARNOLD. Your point is that it takes the same number of people to get that particular job done. Representative REECE. What does "casual workers" mean? Dr. LUBIN. Longshoremen, domestic servants, and so forth, people who do not have steady employment in the sense that they work month after month in the same industry. The CHAIRMAN. How about the construction industry? A good deal of that work is casual. Dr. LUBIN. Some of that is included here. (The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 34" and appears on this page. The statistical data on which this chart is based are included in the appendix on p. 213.) Dr. LUBIN. I want to deal, next, with what has happened to employment in the manufacturing industries during recent years. For the sake of comparison we have taken the average of 3 years, 1923, 1924, and 1925, as our base. I should like to point out that despite the fact that our index of physical production rose very perceptibly, by 25 percent, during the decade of the twenties, the total number of people employed in the manufacturing industries hardly rose at all. As a matter of fact, with the exception of a short period in 1929, the manufacturing industries of the country employed just about the same number throughout the decade, although for a short period they reached a point where they were employing 10 percent more workers than they did in the base years. (The chart referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 35" and appears on this page. The statistical data on which this chart is based are included in the appendix on p. 214.) The CHAIRMAN. In other words, there was a constantly decreasing number of persons necessary to produce a constant output. Dr. LUBIN. Exactly. Senator KING. That constant output, and any improvement in it was the result in part of new technology. Dr. LUBIN. New technology, new methods of doing things. Dr. LUBIN. And changes in management procedure; not necessarily putting in new machines, but reorganizing the flow of goods. and processes and things of that sort. Senator KING. Better distribution. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you are demonstrating is that both the capacity to produce and efficiency of production have been increased. Dr. LUBIN. Exactly. Now, the question arises how to account for the employment situation during this period of time when production was going up, employment in the manufacturing industries remained more or less stable, at the same time that we were adding to our labor supplywe were adding the net of something like 600,000 people every year. Senator KING. In part, women? Dr. LUBIN. Proportionately about the same number of women as in the previous decade. These figures show the net growth in the number of people of working age who normally go to work after they reach a certain age. The CHAIRMAN. How many per year? |