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?
