Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Secretary, how many States have a minimum wage law?

Secretary TOBIN. Of their own in intrastate, there are not a great many-26.

Senator SPARKMAN. Twenty-six?

Secretary TOBIN. Yes, and the District of Columbia. I think there is a minimum wage law in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, also.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Secretary, we know that unemployment frequently occurs in spots-spotty throughout the country. Perhaps in some area the labor market is tight and in other areas there is a great deal of unemployment.

Ordinarily it is this low-income family that cannot move from the unemployment area to the one where there is a supply of employment, or if he does move, we soon find we are caught up in the Dust Bowl tragedy of the late thirties.

Secretary TOBIN. The days of the "Okies."

Senator SPARKMAN. Now what is being done, if anything, within the United States Employment Service to overcome those difficulties? Or, I might put it this way: Is any recommendation being contemplated for legislation to enable people to be transported to jobs?

Secretary TOBIN. There was legislation before the last Congress to that effect. Senator Murray's name was on the bill-S. 281. It was supplementing the Full Employment Act of 1946. But beyond that I do not know of any proposal in Government, or recommendation before the Congress for the movement of people from area to area along those lines.

Under that bill there was provision for the transportation of the family, and I think there was a method of repayment to be made, except from chronically depressed areas.

Senator SPARK MAN. I just started to suggest, Mr. Secretary, it might be proper to say Senator Sparkman's name was on the bill.

Secretary TOBIN. I should have said Senator Sparkman's name was on that. I am very sorry.

Senator SPARK MAN. I believe I introduced the bill.

Secretary TOBIN. You are right. My humblest apologies.

Senator SPARKMAN. I was wondering, though, if perhaps I might be putting in a plug for at least a part of that legislation called for under that bill and bidding for administration support. And I was wondering to what extent the administration was contemplating such action as that.

Secretary TOBIN. I would certainly be delighted to sit down with the Senator who has such an able mind in such matters

Senator SPARKMAN. You have fully made up for your previous

answer.

Secretary TOBIN. I would be delighted to support such a program, because there are areas in the country-take one-industry communities, where if the one industry goes out people are almost helpless. I have seen the situation many times in my life, and ordinary remedies will not correct such a situation.

Mr. HUBER. May I ask a question?

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Huber.

Mr. HUBER. On this minimum wage, Mr. Secretary, the argument is so often brought up that-for instance, I am in Ohio and I say State A, a Southern State, there it is not necessary for a person to

61484-50

buy any winter clothing for himself and family, and the cost of living is so much less there it could not justify this minimum wage. What do you say about that?

Secretary TOBIN. If you look at the cost-of-living tables, there is not a great differential over the country.

Amazingly, the great difference in our studies in 34 cities-the main differential for over-all cost of living-was housing. You ought to see the weighted table-the factors that went into it; it is very interesting. It averages out an overcoat for a man about every 8 years and a felt hat every 3 years, and so forth. But the great differential was in housing.

Mr. HUBER. That is what I was thinking.

Secretary TOBIN. And in clothing and the like there is not a great range. There is hardly a part, Senator Sparkman will tell you, in his State where people do not have to have fuel in the wintertime the greatest proportion of the time-maybe not in the southern portion of it.

The arguments advanced that you do not need fuel, you do not need a foundation under the house, and the like, might be true as regards Florida but hardly any other section of the whole South. Probably right along the Gulf for a hundred miles up, maybe, but for the rest of your State you have pretty cold temperatures in the winter, do you not?

Senator SPARKMAN. I have seen it 10 below zero in
Mr. HUBER. And you need coal, then.
Senator SPARKMAN. We use coal.

my home.

Mr. HUBER. I can recall this committee, during the Eightieth Congress, under the Baldwin resolution on the cost-of-living studies, found in Portland, Oreg., despite the fact the dairy farmers there did not need barns-the cows were in pasture all the time-the cost of milk was still only 1 cent less than the national average at that time.

Senator SPARK MAN. Of course, there is no weighted differential and has not been since the inception of the Minimum Wage Act. Is that not right-none recognized by the law?

Secretary TOBIN. There is no wage differential recognized, and, of course, everyone in interstate commerce will now, after the 25th of January, have to pay 75 cents an hour as a minimum rate.

But under some of our determinations, such as those made under the Walsh-Healey Act, there is a differential in different areas of the country that is founded on the prevailing minimum rate to be found in an industry.

But one of the greatest levelers is the right to free collective bargaining, the right of workers to band together, and the requirement of management to deal with them.

And I would say that union membership has rested at a figure of about 15,750,000 for more or less a period of 2 years, showing that the Taft-Hartley law has had its effect in the prevention of union organization.

Mr. RICH. Mr. Secretary, with reference to this minimum wage in interstate commerce, what is done, or what is being done, or what can be done to put all the people under that minimum wage? I imagine probably half of the people are not covered, and probably more than half. Would you know the percentage?

Secretary TOBIN. I would say that probably 45 percent or better of wage earners are covered. About 22,000,000 workers are covered. We have about 15,000,000 factory workers in the country. These are covered. Then in trade there are certain provisions under the law-I would be delighted to have this, and I proposed it, all we would have to do, if you will join Senator Sparkman and put just this one phrase in the law, "affecting commerce," you will cover everyone practically in the country. That is all you need.

Mr. RICH. If it is good for one class of people, why is not good

for all?

Secretary TOBIN. I did my best to convince the committees of both the House and Senate that would be a sound approach to it.

Senator SPARKMAN. But getting back to the number, did you say there were about 22,000,000 covered?

Secretary TOBIN. There are about 22,000,000 employees covered under the law.

Senator SPARKMAN. And that is 22,000,000 out of about 50,000,000? Secretary TOBIN. Nonagricultural?

Senator SPARKMAN. With nonagricultural, it would be about 50,000,000-22 out of 50.

Secretary TOBIN. We have about 63,000,000 potential workers in the country.

Senator SPARKMAN. Including agriculture?

Secretary TOBIN. Close to 60,000,000 working now. That includes, say 81⁄2 million in agriculture.

It includes

Senator SPARKMAN. Military?

Secretary TOBIN. Yes, the military; and the self-employed. I would say we probably have working for salaries and wages well above 40,000,000 people in the country, including all workers not covered as well as those covered.

Senator SPARKMAN. Added to that would be those that are covered by the 26 State laws?

Secretary TOBIN. Yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. I do not mean covered by the Federal law but by some kind of a minimum wage law.

Secretary TOBIN. Well, some of the State laws cover only women. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes.

Secretary TOBIN. And some of the State laws cover both men and women. Then they establish the rates usually by industries. And some of them are not very helpful, they have pretty low standards. But, nevertheless, the principle is there.

I would much rather take the Congressman's position and change the existing law to put in "affecting commerce," and then I believe we would bring in the great bulk of the workers.

Mr. RICH. Does it not make it more difficult for those who are not under it now since we have it for certain segments of industry, make it more difficult for those in the low-income groups now to exist? Secretary TOBIN. That is true.

Mr. RICH. In other words, it may help some few people but it is a hindrance to others?

Secretary TOBIN. That is right. And then there are special exemptions written in the law excluding this classification and that one.

Mr. RICH. I have another question, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPARKMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. RICH. Mr. Secretary, in this old-age and survivors insurance, I listened very intently to your statement in reference to your thought that the Federal Government was the one that should have the principal insurance. And then you made the statement that we are writing today more group insurance by companies.

To your knowledge were there any companies or corporations who carried their insurance with insurance companies and like the industries you spoke of that went out of existence, or in bankruptcy, that could not meet their obligations?

Secretary TOBIN. No, I know of no such companies. You see this great trend has come for a long period of time. About 1900 the first industrial companies started pension plans. They were quite moderate. And around the time of the First World War quite a few additional companies set up old-age pension plans. I suppose at that time it was as an incentive to hold help when the inclination was to move from place to place.

Then there has been a decided surge in that direction in the immediate postwar period following World War II. And I do not know of my own knowledge of a single insurance company carrying that kind of insurance that failed during the period.

Mr. RICH. Then if the corporations would go to these insurance companies and pay their premiums to them, and let them carry it, they naturally would leave the benefits accruing to them over a certain period of time until all the funds were exhausted, at least.

Secretary TOBIN. Let me point this out to you: It would cost the company for the voluntary insurance policy much more to give the worker a vested interest in the policy than to have just an old-age, retirement insurance policy in which the employee had no vested interest, because in the writing of the rates the insurance companies would, from an actuarial point of view, determine the number of people who will leave employment, and the number of people who would pass away prior to arriving at the age of 65. So that the rate that the company has to pay is a decided factor in the kind of policy it is going to give to the employees.

Mr. RICH. Yes.

Secretary TOBIN. And that is why many of the policies were written. with no vested right in the employee, with complete control of most of the insurance systems in the hands of the employers.

Mr. RICH. The employee received a policy for those benefits. And if he received a policy, certainly the insurance company, if they do not go broke, ought to make good.

Secretary TOBIN. Supposing there is a clause in that policy that merely says, "If you are with the company at the age 65." If the company is out of existence at the time, if the company has gone bankrupt, if it goes into the hands of new owners and they decide to abandon the policy, or if the man decides to change his job, there is no equity of any kind the moment any one of those happen.

Mr. RICH. I do not suppose everything can be covered in an insurance policy. If you do it makes it complicated and difficult. You have got to have rules and regulations in any good-regulated business. Secretary TOBIN. If you want to give protection to the average American, a sound system is the old-age and survivors insurance sys

tem under Federal security. There if the employer goes bankrupt, he still has it. If he changes his job, he still has his protection.

Mr. RICH. Did I understand you to say a while ago that when a man becomes 65 you felt it was his duty to relinquish his job?

Secretary TOBIN. Oh, no; I did not say that. I said there should be every encouragement to a man or a woman who has reached the age of 65 to carry on.

Mr. RICH. That is right. I think so, too, and I misunderstood you then, because I was afraid you said when a man became 65 he should give his job up to somebody else.

Secretary TOBIN. I said that one of the motivating factors behind the enactment of the old-age and survivors insurance in 1935 was the hope that eventually people reaching the age of 65 would be encouraged to leave the labor market.

Mr. RICH. I am glad to have that cleared up.

I have one other question, and that is in reference to the low-income families.

Do you find them mostly in the cities or in the country? Is there any differential between the percentage to any great extent?

Secretary TOBIN. Well, I will get that answer for you; I have not got it.

But of the income families below $2,000 in the rural areas—and this is not a direct answer at all-20 percent of those families have as a family head a person over 65 years of age.

Could you answer that question, Mr. Stewart?

Senator SPARK MAN. I believe it is given in our committee study. Secretary TоBIN. I think it is.

Senator SPARKMAN. I believe we can find it in there. It is on page 10, table 2.

Mr. RICH. Mr. Secretary, yesterday it was stated here that there were 5,500,000 families that did not have wage earners, and 3,000,000 people that were out of work, who either did not want work or else could not find jobs.

Can you give us the percent?

Secretary TOBIN. You have got 59,500,000 people right now, as of November report, gainfully employed in the United States. And I think there are 3,400,000-I am drawing on my memory-who are unemployed.

Mr. RICH. 3,400,000?

Secretary TOBIN. Yes.

Mr. RICH. I think they said 5,500,000 families did not have a wage

earner.

Secretary TOBIN. You take all of your people under old-age and survivors insurance, all of your aid to dependent children casesunder that system it is the desire to have the mother remain at home with her children rather than go to work-all of those families would not have a breadwinner, and all of those on old-age assistance, which is the charity form of help. So that if you took your 3,400,000I think that table is in here also.

Senator SPARKMAN. Table A-2, page 62.

Secretary TOBIN. Head of family not in the labor force, 5,520,000. That would take in all forms of old-age assistance, old-age and survivors insurance, aid to dependent children, where in most cases you would have no father as the head of the family, you would have a