Mr. LARSON. I would think that generally in the area we are now concerned with, the very bottom of the minimum wage scale, the factor of fringe benefits probably does not loom very large. You find them characteristically more up the line of the wage scale somewhere.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Coon?

Mr. Coon. I would just like to thank Mr. Larson for the very fine statement he has made, and for the helpful information he has brought to the committee. I have no questions.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I think we referred previously to the charts appended to Mr. Rothman's testimony, but I want to see if I understand it correctly.

The last chart shows the minimum budgets for a working woman in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arizona, Utah, and the District of Columbia, and the lowest figure would be 90 cents an hour to provide that minimum budget.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Excuse me. Where are you quoting from? Mr. ROOSEVELT. From Mr. Rothman's mimeographed testimony which has been submitted for the record. It is the very last chart, I think.

It goes up as high as $1.27 in New York. This is submitted officially for the committee's information, and I suppose it is a helpful study. Unless, again, workingwomen are all in the class of children 15 and 16, which I would deplore, I would think that the committee could take some factual information from this chart to suggest that even if we put the minimum wage at a dollar, we are still away under a minimum budget for the head of a family or a workingwoman. Would that be a correct assumption from that chart?

Mr. LARSON. These budgets, as I say, have been prepared by others and not by us.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. You submit them, though. I gather you must have some faith in them, else what is the point of submitting them?

Mr. LARSON. Because that is all there is. It is the only thing we have on single persons' budgets.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I ask you, Do you have any faith in them? Mr. LARSON. I haven't personally analyzed the character or the way these budgets were arrived at, the component parts or who made them, so I cannot say whether I have faith in them or not.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I wish you would ask Mr. Rothman whether he has faith in them, because I would like to know why they are presented to the committee if you do not have faith in them.

Mr. LARSON. I think probably the most interesting thing they bring out is the relation between the minimum budgets, which is the shaded part, and the minimum wage rates that were in fact set by the States, such as California, on the strength of these budgets.

The one thing this chart does bring out is that even after you have arrived at what might be worked out as a minimum budget, everyone finds himself, including the State of California and the other States, adopting a minimum wage which, for one reason or another, is substantially short of this budget so worked out.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Secretary, because we are talking about California, let me say that California tries to conform to the Federal

minimum wage, and the Federal minimum wage is 75 cents. We got to it in California in order to conform, and not be below what had been set as the national minimum wage.

You will notice that some of the other States go away down, much below the national minimum, which again I would deplore, but I am not criticizing other States. That is not my job. I assure you there will be a heavy drive in California to raise the State minimum wage to what I hope the Federal minimum wage will be.

The thing which interests me, to get back to it, is that if this chart has any value, it shows that the minimum budget for somebody to work on-we are not talking about a comfortable budget or average budget such as we were talking about before. This is labeled as a minimum budget. It shows that the average necessary for the head of a family, to be able to live on, is away above a dollar.

All I can say is that I hope you will stand by that, and if it does not have any value, of course, I think we should eliminate it.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Will you yield, Mr. Roosevelt?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Gladly.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. The other budget to which he referred, the $4,000 budget, was labeled an emergency budget.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. But testimony has been brought out here that that was not so.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Quite right.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. This is submitted by the Department officially. That is why I am asking the question, so we will not have the wrong name on it. If it is a minimum budget, I would like to know it.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Quite right, but then you have the meaning that the word "minimum" implies. What is minimum for you and me might be different, we will say, from the minimum for someone else.. I think both you and I are in complete sympathy and in complete harmony with trying to give the average American workingman as much of a floor as we possibly can without disturbing the economy. The only difference that might exist between you and me is where that figure lies.

Would you think that was fair?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes, I would think that was fair. I hope we can narrow our difference.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Gwinn?

Mr. GWINN. Mr. Larson, is there not great confusion in this discussion about minimum wage? This bill does not attempt to cover that. Is it not a fact that we are simply trying to force, by statute, a minimum on the least productive person, the youngest, the handicapped, the slow, those at the very bottom of the earning ladder, not the top.

Mr. LARSON. I think one should point out that there is in the minimum-wage administration, room for making special allowance for the handicapped, and there is room for making special allowance for the young learner and other learners. So to the extent that being inexperienced or young or handicapped is involved, that is specially allowed for under the administration of the act.

Mr. GWINN. Or the slow or whatever the productive capacity is, and it varies greatly, does it not, among persons? Whatever the productive capacity is, this covers and makes a minimum wage for that.

It

has nothing to do with the skilled person or the person who would make much more than that. Is that not the purpose?

Mr. LARSON. The language of Congress, which is the framework that we have to operate within, speaks of the health and efficiency and general well-being of working people. It does not limit it to the slow or the inefficient or the inept.

Mr. GWINN. The intent is again, as with corn, to create a floor or the bottom price. Most women who work get more than 75 cents, do they not?

Mr. LARSON. Oh, yes; in manufacturing, yes.

Mr. GWINN. In practical effect, this is an attempt to say that nobody shall earn less than 75 cents, whatever their productivity is. That is really what we are getting at, is it not?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GWINN. I yield.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would not like to let stand in the record without having something said about it, the impression that the people in the southern sawmills or the people who work in work clothing, precessed waste, candy, men's and boys' shirts, all the way down the line, including cotton textiles and everything else, include nothing but slow workers and people that we would seem to be putting some kind of label on that they are not first-class workers. They are. I think you would find that, if given an opportunity, the same thing might well happen to them that happened to the people who work for Mr. Ford. Mr. GWINN. The gentleman knows I am not trying to characterize people except the minimum, the lowest.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. It does not sound that way.

Mr. GWINN. This law says you shall not pay less than 75 cents to anybody.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is right.

Mr. GWINN. We know that that includes, from the guesses which have been made here, a lot of rather unproductive, low-end workers. Mr. LARSON. Honestly, and in all sincerity, I do not want to associate myself with that sentiment, because we are dealing with 1,300,000 good, honest, hard-working Americans who are now at work and who apparently are thought well enough of by their employers to keep them at work. All this action is doing is taking the same workers who are pulling their weight now, apparently, and saying that in view of the change in conditions, and so on, which we have described, they should be brought up to a somewhat better level of earnings. That is about all there is to it.

Mr. KELLEY. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. GWINN. I yield.

Mr. KELLEY. If industry employs men who are inept or inefficient, why keep them? Why hire them to start with? If you hire them once, they ought to be able to get a minimum wage.

Mr. GWINN. Why deprive them of earning what they can and put them in the miserable position of having to have unemployment insurance. I think society, especially the worker, is entitled to an opportunity to earn what he can, and that is why this kind of legislation has an inhuman characteristic in it, of great proportions, too. It says that he cannot work unless he can produce 90 cents an hour, and we know there are a lot of people who cannot do that.

It is cruel to take away from him finally the chance of earning what he can in the market.

Are you accurate when you say, Mr. Larson, the question is whether industry can absorb these artificial rises? You do not mean that, do you?

Mr. LARSON. In what sense?

Mr. GWINN. You do not mean that industry absorbs this. You mean whether the consumer will pay these prices.

Mr. LARSON. As I indicated a moment ago, it might be some of one and some of another, but the economy, the country, can adjust itself to this kind of move.

Mr. GWINN. You know the economy of the country depends absolutely upon the consumer purchasing the product, and that is where the absorption is, in great measure at least, is that not so?

Mr. LARSON. I do not know which is the major factor. All I know is the result, on the strength of experience, that one way or another this kind of move can successfully be made, and no undue offsetting damaging effects of such severity will result as to make the move undesirable.

Mr. GWINN. How can you say that when you admitted just a while ago that you could not measure the effect on the consumer, when he is the boss all the way through as to whether or not he buys the product?

Mr. LARSON. The reason I can say it is that we think the experience in the last adjustment, taking it all in all, is a guide to what will probably happen in this adjustment.

Mr. KELLEY. Any further questions?

If not, in behalf of the committee I wish to thank you for the appearance you and your staff have made today and yesterday. You have been very helpful to us in trying to solve this problem.

Mr. HUSSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two statements for the record, one from the Honorable Lester Holtzman, of New York, and one from the Honorable Victor Wickersham, of Oklahoma, with enclosed letter from the Frederick Leader, a daily newspaper of Frederick, Okla.

Mr. KELLEY. Without objection, they will be included in the record. (The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LESTER HOLTZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity extended to me to say a few words to the members of the House Committee on Education and Labor, on the need for legislation to increase our present minimum wage from 75 cents per hour to $1.25 per hour.

Although my own committee obligations prevent me from personally appearing before the members of this committee, I cannot urge too strongly that you give this pending legislation your prompt and favorable consideration.

I am sure that the best and most persuasive arguments in behalf of such an increase in the minium wage have already been presented to you by my colleagues, so I will not take up much of your valuable time.

There is no question about the fact that since 1938 the minimum wage has failed to keep up with the cost of living. The unemployment figures for 1954 are shocking, and with a steadily increasing labor force each year it is imperative that the Federal Government take concrete action to improve the economic plight of thousands of low-wage earners, who are unable to maintain themselves and their families during times of economic adjustment.

The administration had proposed an increase in the minium wage to 90 cents per hour. I am afraid that this recommendation is inadequate at this time in

63489-55-25

view of the continuing rapid rise of living costs, and certainly does not take into consideration increased worker productivity.

We need a realistic floor beneath current wage levels, and the $1.25 hourly minimum wage would prevent the exploitation of substandard, seasonal and lowwage workers. It would stop, to a great extent, the runaway shops which have caused such harm, both socially and economically, to the Northern States, particularly New England and New York. During the past few years the movement of industries has caused much distress and misery in certain areas throughout the country, and has created terrific problems for the communities so affected. An increase to an adequate and equitable minimum wage would do much to offset the effect of such runaway industries, and would tend to reduce area wage differentials. In addition, it would bolster our national economy by creating more purchasing power, bettering our standard of living, and contributing to full employment.

I hope that this committee will see its way clear to report out a bill which will establish the minimum wage at $1.25 per hour.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR WICKERSHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the committee is in a better position than I to determine the needed increase in the minimum-wage bill now under consideration. I am in favor, however, of a proper increase in the minimum-wage law and am sure that you gentlemen will make the proper increase.

I would like to call the attention of the committee to the following letter received from a constituent of mine which will clearly explain one very great need for improvement in this legislation:

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. VICTOR WICKERSHAM,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.

THE FREDERICK LEADER,

Frederick, Okla.

DEAR VICTOR: I cannot help but feel continuing alarm for smaller community daily newspapers of the Nation, and there are many of them in your district, relative to the reported indication that present exemption from provisions of the minimum-wage law for dailies of less than 4,000 circulation confined to the small areas they serve might be withdrawn.

You are aware of the high mortality rate among newspapers, principally dailies, from the smallest to the largest. It is a part of America battling for its life, and the smaller dailies in communities like Frederick are particularly hard hit by the constant rise in newspaper production costs.

All the small dailies like ours have weeklies, owned by others in our community that are exempt, for competition. This is in addition to the inroads on advertising revenue being made by television and other media.

A small daily, with a circulation under 4,000, presently exempt from the minimum-wage law, is really not in interstate commerce. Neither can it exist if brought under the same general law that applies to manufacturers, etc., engaged in interstate commerce.

The small daily is already competing with the metropolitans for productive labor ranging in rates up to $2.25 per hour. It is paying the same price for a linotype machine as the Oklahoman Times. Such an operation has never produced more than a decent living for its owners.

There is absolutely no way for the smaller dailies of Oklahoma, dependent on agriculture and the will of the weather, to support daily newspaper costs under the minimum-wage law. Some of the rougher work around the plant must be done by people in our community who need year-round jobs and whose abilities and capabilities make it practical for them to learn a trade at lower than the proposed minimum rate. Those who have the ability go on out into larger cities and strong lifetime jobs.

Small dailies all over the Nation, in cities of 5,000 to 9,000 population, will be adversely affected in the same way. It will force many more of them out than the current rate of suspensions.

I hope that you will give serious thought to this and do all you can to preserve the present exemption from the minimum-wage law for small dailies with circulation of less than 4,000, most of which is in the area contiguous to the city