That now ugh loy- h to ome 8CO-~ 3 at tes, ions ally Was OI- well ORE tee, 160) : the sent ve a ndi- I dang rom lave any day reek lays a8 a und, 1ar- cher em- own ‘hen firm eas, and 1 or em- and { be far r of UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 75 men was able to handle the business of a larger number of men on the docks. This may decrease the number of men employed, you may say; instead of having 1,000 men partially employed all the time as at present, you would have 400 fully employed and 300 partially em- ployed, and a further 300 squeezed out into other industries, who would be unemployed; but the last 300 men would then be engaged in producing other products. Mr. Sumners. There would be a consuming power, you say, waiting for them? Where will the 300 be that were squeezed out altogether when other industries likewise are dropping them? Mr. Doucras. Let us suppose in this harbor you had formerly 600 men, 500 being your minimum number employed and 700 the maximum, which would make an average of 600. And suppose they were working 5 days a week at $6 a day, then their weekly pay roll 1s $18,000. Now, let us suppose there are 1,000 men in the harbor, then their weekly average would be $18 a week, now, you have not increased the total amount of work in the harbor. But something has happened; and what is it that has happened? You have $18,000 now shared among 700 workers, so that they would now earn on an average $26 a week, by dividing the $18,000 among 700 men, you would get $26 a week. Therefore, each person employed would receive $8 more each week than he had before; and there would be 700 people employed who would have this $8 a week more than they had before, or fifty-six hundred dollars more purchasing power, coming from their fuller employment, and that would create oppor- tunities, that increase demand for products for those who were squeezed out. Mr. Sumners. Where are those 300 people now who got squeezed out and who are getting no money at all? Mr. Dovcras. In the first place we should have employment agencies to direct them to the opportunities for employment which will come in the various industries from the expenditure of the increased purchasing power of the other 700. } Mr. SumnERs. Yes; but how are the 300 fellows who had jobs and were squeezed out in times of depression like these to get jobs? Mr. DovcLas. Do you deny that $5,600 more will be in the pockets of those remaining employed? Mr. SumnErs. No, indeed; but what about the 300 who were squeezed out of their jobs and who have no money-in their pockets? Mr. Dovucras. Well, I want to call your attention to this question: What will they do with the money, this $5,600 extra purchasing power which the 700 who are employed now have in addition to what they formerly had? You must see they will either spend it or save it. Mr. SumyErs. Suppose they do; but what about the 300 of that number aho are now unemployed——getting no money? Mr. Doucras. I say that it would be better to have the 700 men more fully employed than 1,000 men on partial employment, even more full employed than 1,000 men on partial employment. Even if 300 were thrown out of employment entirely, that fact at least would identify the shortcomings—this fact that there are 300 men out of employment. . . . Mr. Sumners. I do not know that I quite appreciate your point. You say it is not better for 1,000 men to get a smaller wage than 700 to have the full wage and 300 idle?