« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Mason. May I inquire?
Mr. Mason. Would it be any more difficult for the Tariff Commission to determine that these people were thrown out of employment because of our tariff regulations and therefore should be subsidized than for the Tariff Board under the Randall Commission to determine that they had been thrown out of work because of tariff regulations and therefore should be rehabilitated and supported and even the community subsidized? I cannot see that the one is any more difficult than the other, and that is what the Randall Report suggests.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Mason, I think you are in error there.
Mr. Mason. I am not in error. I read the Randall Report and they suggest and recommend.
The CHAIRMAN. It was turned down by a vote.
Mr. COOPER. One member recommended it and expressed it in his minority views, but the Commission did not adopt that recommendation,
Mr. Mason. But that recommendation still is very much alive. Mr. COOPER. You better read it again. You are in error about it.
Mr. Mason. I read it. I know who the member was who recommended and all that, and I am saying that principle is very much alive.
Mr. COOPER. By 1 man out of 17.
Mr. LARSON. We have covered a rather wide range and I think it might be useful if I pulled the threads together in a few words.
Mr. FORAND. Mr. Chairman, before the summation may I inquire a bit here?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Forand will inquire.
Mr. FORAND. I had to leave the hearing early yesterday. Perhaps you gave this information to the committee, but I had some notes here. I was anxious to find out if you had statistics showing the national average of weekly benefits paid in and also the national average of duration of benefits that are paid.
Mr. LARSON. We have a table that is appended to the statement that has it State by State, I believe. Whether we struck an average figure on that table, I do not recall. The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to this table I have in my hand?
Mr. FORAND. Mr. Chairman, I will not press for it further. If you do not have it in the record would you strike the average and enclose it at this point in the record?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; I think we can very, very quickly do that.
I have the average weekly payments which is probably the most realistic figure of all, which is $23.58 for 1953. The actual average duration in weeks was about 10 weeks or a little over.
Mr. FORAND. Ten weeks?
Mr. LARSON. Yes, the average period for which benefits were paid. That was 1953. However, the average actual duration of persons exhausting benefits was 19.2 weeks.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COOPER. I just wanted to invite your attention, for the benefit of the record and especially our good friend, Mr. Mason, to page 28 of your statement presented to this committee at this hearing in the middle of the page. You have there:
The principle involved in this bill referring to the Baker bill, H. R. 8585— was carefully considered and rejected by the Commission on Foreign Economic Policy, under the chairmanship of Clarence M. Randall. The Commission's view on this matter was accepted by the administration.
That is out of your statement.
Mr. FORAND. The other point I was interested in was how many workers exhausted their benefits, say, in 1953, and if you do not have the statistics for 1953, the latest year for which you have those statistics.
Mr. LARSON. Yes, I think we have that.
Mr. LARSON. The total number of claimants that actually exhausted their wage credits in 1953 was 764,539, and the ratio-this is important—the ratio of the people exhausting benefits to the total number of people who got any benefits at all was a little over 20 percent.
Mr. KEAN. Do you have that by States?
Mr. KEAN. I think it would be a good thing to put that into the record.
Mr. FORAND. I think that would be very helpful. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be placed in the record. (The information referred to follows:)
Calendar year 1953 exhaustion
18, 824 3,090 2, 455 10, 848 56, 965 1, 809 4, 272 1,074 3,152 19,954 15, 941 2, 612 2, 915 35, 309 21, 711 7, 716 6, 677 12, 212 16, 139
6,836 12, 517 42,082 27, 828 10, 254 11, 314 13, 260 1,693 2, 709
777 3, 209 36, 393
1,871 65, 671 22, 233
1, 146 13, 315 12, 586 13, 746 72, 005 14.335 14, 511
907 20, 255 23, 798 1,809 1,010 19,931 17, 572 12, 626 21, 455 1, 190
493 1, 529 12, 927
1,002 19, 634 7, 215
397 9, 473 4, 169 7,721 28, 631 6, 552 6, 657
524 6,664 11, 488
665 9,661 9, 237 3, 933 16, 660
207 1,070 10,064
365 15, 151 6, 785
295 3, 455 3,321 4, 962 19, 270 4, 451 2, 880
399 5, 003 5, 227
476 4, 458 7, 486 3, 276 6, 606
-6.3 +170.0 +34. 2 -13.4 +192.0
+30.3 +174.6 +95. 2 +38.8 +67.8 +24.6 +72. 5 +91.3 +292.3 +101.3 +230.5 +39.4 +19.8 +38. 6 +72.2 +44.1 +249.0 +10.1 +38.1 +131. 1 +166.4
+14.9 +138.2 +42.9 +28.4 +174.5 +29.6
+6.3 +34.6 +174.2 +25.5 +55.6 +48.6 +47.2 +131. 1 +31.3 +33.2 +119.8 +83.0 +39.7 +116.7 +23.4 +20.1 +152. 2
41.4 19. 7 20.3 31.3 16.2 22.9
8.6 21.1 29.7 41.4 33.8 19.5 20.7 16.6 28. 3 32. 1 24. 2 20.2 41.7 21.9 19.2 27.4 19.5 20.9 34. 7 16.8 14.8 21.4 14.1 13. 2 18.8 22.3 11.9 21.7 17.6 12.5 38.3 18. 2 19.7 28.6 35.2 26. 2 25.7 36.0 16.4 16.4 39. 1 17.8 18.8 33. 2 28.6
1 Exhaustions for calendar year as percentage of first payments for 12-month period ending in September.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Division of Actuarial and Financial Services. June 15, 1954.
Mr. LARSON. We have not put figures of this kind in, of course, since we were not dealing in the administration legislation with duration or benefit levels, as of course you do in your bill.
Mr. FORAND. I am hoping that you will include that in the record because my next question was: What would have been the case if we had the law read 39 weeks duration instead of 26 or 22 or 16, whatever it is in the average State? If you can get those figures, I would appreciate it.
Mr. LARSON. You mean the effect on exhaustions particularly?
Mr. LARSON. It might be difficult to calculate that, of course, because you do not really know after a man has exhausted his benefits how soon afterwards he picks up another job. You do not always know that.
Mr. FORAND. The best estimate you can give.
Mr. FORAND. And how much additional that would have been in dollars, that is, dollars that would have gone in the consumer trade, and so forth.
Mr. LARSON. That, too, would be extremely difficult.
Mr. FORAND. The 2 are part of 1 question really, so as you work it up give us the benefit of your studies, if you please. Mr. LARSON. We will try to do the best we can with that. Mr. FORAND. Thank you.
(The information referred to follows:) Estimated number of exhaustions in 1953 if claimants in all States had been entitled to 39 weeks of benefits.
275, 000 Estimated cost in 1953 of increasing the present duration provisions of the State laws to uniform 39 weeks.
(1) 1 $240 million, or 25 percent increase in actual 1953 costs.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. BAKER. Along the same line as Mr. Forand's question, do you have that by industries, that is, the workers who have drawn all their wage credits industry by industry.
Nr. Larson. I do not believe I have ever seen a calculation industry by industry on that.
Mr. BAKER. Would it be difficult to place in the record the number of workers who exhausted their wage credits or drew all their money they were entitled to in 1953 in lead and zinc and coal mining?
Mr. LARSON. That would take, of course, a specialized study within the States. We rely on the States, of course, for these figures and whether they have that or not I could not vouch for. We might look into it.
(The Department of Labor has contacted the States for the information requested above.)
The CHAIRMAN. Now Mr. Curtis.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. I have a specific question and a kind of general question, if I may. You estimate the number of employees to be covered down to 1 would be 3.5 million?
Mr. LARSON. 3.4 million to be perfectly precise.
Mr. CURTis of Missouri. What would it be if you went down to four employees per employer? Do you have those figures?
Mr. LARSON. Yes; I think we could give you that. If we went down to 4 or more, it would mean 1.4 million additional workers and about 300,000 employers.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. In other words below 4 is the bulk of the 3 million.
Mr. LARSON. A little more than half below.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. The general question, the one that I spoke to you about after the hearing yesterday that I wanted to ask and have your considered judgment on is this: as to whether or not
there is a deterrent, any deterrent, the way the Federal law is now written which discourages a State from adopting a minimum of workers or employees below eight?
Mr. LARSON. I do not think you could honestly say there is an affirmative deterrent in the Federal legislation with respect to the State reduction. The deterrent could come in other forms, such as feeling perhaps a competitive disadvantage similar to that which held the States back in the first instance, but probably more than anything else just the inertia or the sheer difficulty 51 jurisdictions have to move in this direction.
It is difficult enough to get legislation passed, and multiply it 51 times over when you try to get a thing like this accomplished on a State basis.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Actually, the way the law is written now there is an encouragement to go below eight for a State because they will get that without the 0.3-percent tax; am I not right?
Mr. LARSON. That, of course, depends on the State. The State can itself collect that added administrative amount, and several of them do.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. As far as the Federal Government is concerned, they do not have to pay 0.3 percent.
Mr. LARSON. That is true. They get a little free ride there because to some extent they may get their administrative expenses for this less-than-eight group paid for by the Federal Government.
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri. Actually by passing this particular legislation we will then be taxing the 17 States that now have taken the affirmative step of going down below 1, This legislation will allow a tax for 0.3 percent when presently they are not taxed with that and that would be true of other States that may not have gone down to 1, but at least to the extent they have gone below 8.
Mr. LARSON. That is right. That, of course, is the essence of the argument, that this is removing a tax inequity which extends throughout the whole country, and one of our principal arguments for saying that this is an occasion for Federal action is because it is our Federal tax that is discriminating between employers of 8 or more and employers of 7 or less and if there is a discrimination which has been imposed by the Federal Government and there is no good excuse for it any more, it is the Federal Government's job to get rid of this.
Mr. Curtis of Missouri. To turn the coin around, instead of using the word "discrimination” I would put it this way: That we in the Federal Government as the law is presently written actually encourage States to adopt "below 8" to the extent that they are forgiven this tax, and the basic fact still remains that there is no deterrent the
way the law is written that would deter a State from covering "below 8." The other reasons which you suggest are not the Federal law anyway.
Mr. LARSON. It is a pretty small item and whether it is significant or not actually to have any effect on State action I rather doubt.
Mr. KEAN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. KEAN. Of course, unless the Senate passes the Reed-MasonMills bill, which is over there now, the people in the States might get no good out of this additional tax where they are not getting it now.
One other question, following Mr. Forand's inquiry. Those 700,000 people who have exhausted their benefits, are not necessarily still un