35) without a high school diploma. And this age group will rise more sharply than all others, as noted earlier. Just among males 25-34 years old, the estimate is that 4.2 million of them will be without a high school diploma but nevertheless in the labor force. If these projections are correct, we will continue to need training programs and even pressures to redesign job requirements to fit the individual.

Third, despite some contrary beliefs, the number of craftsmen and foremen will increase by 2.2 million between 1965 and 1975. This estimate should be coupled with the one relating to industry changes, in which it is expected that in contract construction the projected increase of one million jobs will constitute a proportional rise in that 10-year period of nearly one-third-the highest proportional rise of all goods-producing industries. In other words, apprenticeships, middle-echelon jobs, upgrading, and housing and office-building construction-in a word, urban reconstruction activities-do offer a promising source of employment opportunities if the proper manpower and economic policies and programs are started on now.

Fourth, there is the rather vague and miscellaneous job category unfortunately labeled in the aggregate as "service occupations," but which could contain a great potential for increased job opportunities. For the record, we ought to make clear what is included in this grab-bag. It includes the following types of jobs: barbers, firemen, waiters, bartenders, protective service workers, policemen and detectives, private household workers, hairdressers, and janitors.

We should not confuse this occupational category with the industry category of the same name. The "service industries" include: advertising, private households, barber and beauty shops, auto repairing, hotels and motels, hospitals, theaters and movie houses, schools, and governments.

To pinpoint the matter further, in the last full Census count (1960), 59 percent of all male service workers were in service industries (professional and related services, government, and "other" industries); and 74 percent of female service workers were in the same types of service industries.

Fifth, and the main point, service jobs and service industries are going to increase tremendously by 1975. If we concentrate only on the service industries, regardless of occupation, the projection is that in government alone nearly 4 million jobs additional will be available—an increase of 39 percent. More than

"But more than one-half of all these female service workers were employed in private households as domestics. And nearly one-half of all such female service workers in private households were nonwhite, with mean earnings in 1959 of $864. Even if nonwhite females in this job and industry worked 50 or more weeks in that year, the mean earnings were only $1,157 (as compared to $2,055 mean earnings for all year-round employed nonwhite females, and $1,809 for year-round employed white females in the same job and industry).

3 percent of such jobs will be with state and local government agencies, not ith the federal government-and even the latter excludes military service bs. This increase raises the question of public service employment as a major olicy issue-discussed below.

An almost equal number of additional jobs in other service industries (such › advertising, maintenance, tourism, health, etc.) is expected—about 3.8 milon; and another 3.4 million additional ones in trade activities—and more than hree-fourths of this increase in retail trade alone.

The basic conclusion from all of this analysis of projections is that, given the ight economic policies and conditions for sound economic growth (and exluding the risks of a resource-wasting war), and from the standpoint of numbers only, there can be enough jobs to employ all persons who need and want o work. But this simple statement raises some further questions:

1. Will the society, through government and private industry, pursue the "right" policies and establish the "right" conditions?

2. To what extent will the underemployed, the working poor, and other jobseekers be qualified to fill the jobs ostensibly available as a result of effective policies in the public and private spheres; will they also be in the right places, i.e., where the jobs are?

These two questions have to do with the outcome of current proposals and ongoing programs in the field of economic and manpower development.

Private and Public Employment

At the current time, a great deal of government energy and resources is being put into appeals to the private sector (especially the giants of private industry) to hire, train, and keep employed large numbers of unemployed and underemployed youths and adult men and women. In addition to the government's relying on basic motive of sheer community civic service—and perhaps even of pure and simple survival, in the light of the recent "civil disorders" (on the assumption that lack of jobs or low-level jobs are the root cause of the rioting and looting)—the government has also sought to use "incentives" with private industry in the form of subsidies to offset the costs of recruiting, training, supervising, and maintaining on the job residents of our cities' slum areas.

It may be too soon to judge such effects as CEP, MA-1 through MA-3, etc., but it appears that to date the efforts have not produced large numbers of successful placements. Perhaps the incentives have not been enough for potential employers. Perhaps too few potential employers have been reached (the techniques and/or the target employers may have been limited). Possibly there may be

problems not anticipated by the administrators and employers in these various programs and projects around the country-problems caused by handicaps of the hard-core unemployed and underemployed such as illiteracy, poor health, fears and misconceptions about the nature of work and supervision; by lack of preparation of trainers and supervisors on the job for coping with the handicaps of such persons, etc. Discrimination based on racism continues to plague the job market also..

At any rate, it may well be that even with the best of motives, the best of recruiting, training, on-the-job techniques, etc., the actual numbers of jobs now available for the hard-core unemployed and underemployed in private industry are limited, or not readily accessible to such persons (in terms of location of jobs versus location of people). In general, it may well be that at the present time the demand within private industry for entry jobs (even with needs for meeting normal turnover, retirements, etc.) is too low to absorb all jobseekers in the areas where the jobs are.

A preliminary report by the National Committee on Employment of Youth regarding the accomplishments of job-creation and placement programs by the government and by the National Alliance of Businessmen (NAB)—a private-sector approach backed up by government incentives-stated that "employers in the public sector seem to be achieving the hiring goals more readily than those in the private sector." The survey's data on 18 of the 50 largest cities in which NAB projects were initiated revealed that as of mid-July only 31,184 jobs were filled-in contrast to 131,000 originally planned as the summer job goal in those cities.

This is not necessarily a criticism of the sincerity and intent of the many dedicated employers and their representatives involved in the campaign of the National Alliance of Businessmen. Samuel M. Burt and Herbert E. Striner, in a recent staff paper published by the Institute, pointed out in great detail what the limitations are of a job-creation program relying heavily on the private sector. For one thing, it may be too much for middle-sized and small companies to provide the total gamut of services (including recruiting, remedial reading, health services, redesigning of jobs, counseling, financial assistance in crises of new workers, and reorientation of regular workers and supervisors) required to make such campaigns a success.

Burt and Striner also raise the question as to whether there is a real and effective demand in the private sector sufficient to employ the majority of the hard-core unemployed and underemployed-adults as well as youths—in addition to those jobseekers already qualified to fill entry-level jobs. Furthermore, they point out:

Summer Jobs for Youth, 1968, National Committee on Employment of Youth, July 29, 1968, mimeographed, p. 8.

The lesson is really simple . . . don't ask the employer to turn his plant and office into a social service agency or an educational institution. He is paying taxes to the government and is contributing huge sums to educational and charitable institutions to provide [the supportive and remedial services necessary for training and/or hiring the disadvantaged]. . . .If he can be persuaded that any particular new program or programs will do the job more effectively, he will support them either by paying the additional taxes or by increasing his contributions."

The most telling comment these two authors have to make is that many observers are beginning to ask if government itself has done enough to create and provide job opportunities in the public sector. They suggest very strongly that employers in private industry have the right to ask government at all levels to "take the initiative. . . in attempting to remedy its own past and present failure before throwing the major remedial burden on private industry.”

To repeat, it is highly probable that the private sector—even with the best of intentions cannot find enough jobs in its various production and commercial service activities to employ all the youths, men, and women with whom we are all concerned.

At the same time, there is a need for more workers in what has been called "public service employment." Unfortunately, this need has been obscured by the use of such terms as "government as employer of last resort," which implies that such employment should be advocated and provided only after private enterprise has failed to employ everyone; that these jobs with government agencies are only temporary, pending the rise in demand for workers in private enterprise; and that such jobs are not very desirable for the individual or useful and worth while to the community.

But government is more than an employer: more accurately, its function is to provide services to citizens-sucn as education, health protection, national defense, park and recreation facilities, waste disposal, water services, construction and maintenance of highways and other transportation facilities, police and fire protection, etc.

In living up to these and other obligations, the government obviously employs persons in jobs which are vital to the functioning of the society and the economy. The main point here is that the need for the services to be provided is the underlying justification for public service employment.

There are several categories of public service functions which are not being adequately served under existing levels of expenditure and administrative-legis

Samuel M. Burt and Herbert E. Striner, Toward Greater Industry and Government Involvement in Manpower Development (Kalamazoo: The Institute, September 1968),

P. 11.

59-097 0-71-13

lative commitment. The Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, in its 1966 report on public facility needs, cites six major types of public services:8

1. Basic community services. Such as provision of water, electricity, gas, and sanitary services, and including a wide variety of antipollution needs. Some of these services may be provided by private profitmaking organizations, but this does not detract from the fact that they are public services.

2. Transportation services. These cover not only construction and maintenance of highways, roads, streets, and bridges but urban transit systems, parking facilities, airports, train and bus stations, and port facilities. Again, some of these are privately run, but they are nevertheless public in their function, and are ultimately subject to public jurisdiction.

3. Educational services. These include not only public elementary and secondary schools but private ones as well; vocational schools and institutes; community and junior colleges; and universities-plus college housing and ancillary services such as food services, publications, and educational TV. 4. Health services. Hospitals, clinics, medical research projects, nursing home and chronic disease centers, community health clinics, services and facilities for the mentally retarded, family planning centers, etc.

5. Recreational and cultural activities. Embracing outdoor play centers, parks and marinas, neighborhood athletic centers, theaters, museums, auditoriums, libraries, etc.

6. Miscellaneous. Child care centers, jails and prisons, fire protection facilities, etc.

The present level of services in all these categories is inadequate to meet public needs; an expansion of services would provide more jobs. Furthermore, it can be argued that these public services facilitate growth in the private sector, and that if the latter is to prosper, it requires an "infra-structure" of the public service facilities, provided by public service employees.

The emergence of new needs in the public service sector of urban America will in turn generate certain manpower needs that will require (1) the design of new occupations for residents of the inner city; (2) the effective recruitment and training of these residents; (3) their placement in appropriate public agencies once trained (or perhaps after being trained on the job in those agencies); and (4) the development of "job maintenance" techniques in order to keep inner-city residents interested in the new positions (including career ladder opportunities, decent wages, trained supervisors, etc.).

"State and Local Public Facility Needs and Financing, Volume I: Public Facility Needs, December 1966.