The Nature of the Job Problem and the Role Introduction This brief report is intended to provide a springboard for discussion about the nature and size of the job problem in America, especially the question of who among the poor do and do not work and why; the characteristics of the working poor (including their occupations, industries in which they work, and their location); the variety of estimates as to how many more jobs could be filled or created; and the role of private and public employment in meeting the employment needs of the poor and the underemployed. Estimates of the number of people in need of jobs or better jobs range from 4.6 million family heads and unrelated individuals to 7.3 million, as discussed in this paper. These should be compared with 2.4 million (as of March 1968) who were working part time but wanting full-time jobs, or unemployed for 15 or more weeks. As for the sources of new jobs for such persons, there is no one simple estimate as to what the potential might be in the private sector of the economy. In the public sector, one estimate has been as high as 5.3 million for a given number of public service functions. If we take the maximum estimate of 7.3 million family heads and unrelated individuals in need of jobs or better jobs, and assume that the 5.3 million public service jobs could be filled by them, we would then have a gap of about 2 million persons in need of jobs. To date, efforts to create that many new jobs in the private sector have not succeeded, partly because of a lack of an intrinsic demand for private industry employees at the job levels they now might qualify for. The Poor Who Do Not Work Before discussing in detail the estimates of unemployment and underemployment, we should first lay to rest the issue of the poor who do not work. Heads of Families In 1966, there were 2.3 million nonworking heads of poor families, of all ages. But nearly one-half of these family heads were 65 years old or more. Of the remaining 1.2 million poor nonworkers under 65, more than three-fifths (63 percent) were female heads of families. The vast majority of them did not work because of family responsibilities and health problems. We are left then with about 450,000 male heads of poor families under the e of 65, and of these: 64% were ill or disabled 10% were unable to find work 8% were in school 18% gave a variety of other reasons 100% cording to these figures, then, there were in 1966 about 45,000 male heads poor families under the age of 65 who did not work because of inability to d a job. This number is not much to get excited about in any discussion of the or who don't work. Approximately one-fourth of this group were between : ages of 55 and 65. related Individuals In the same year there were nearly 3.2 million nonworking poor persons who re unrelated individuals, but more than 70 percent of these persons were 65 rs old and more! And among the remaining 900,000 or so, 70 percent were men, again with illness and home duties as the major reasons for not work. There were thus only about 275,000 poor unrelated males under the age of who did not work that year, of whom 44% were ill or disabled 15% were unable to find work 20% were in school 21% gave a variety of other reasons 100% cording to these percentages, then, about 41,000 male unrelated individuals Her the age of 65 did not work at all because of inability to find employment. The Working Poor e working poor can be divided into two groups: (1) those who worked but on a year-round, full-time basis; (2) those who did work on such a basis least 40 weeks a year, full time). The first group contained, in 1966, about 1.7 million heads of poor families about 1.2 million poor unrelated individuals. Among the family heads, 15 cent were 65 or older, and 39 percent were females under the age of 65. In er words, 45 percent were under-65 male heads of families. A. In actual numbers this means that in 1966 there were more than 750,000 under-65 male heads of poor families not working on a full-time basis at least 40 weeks in the previous year. The number would be even higher if we had information on how many working male heads of poor families did not work full time at least fifty weeks a year, a more meaningful definition of decent employment. Nevertheless, this figure of 750,000 under-65 working male heads of poor families provides us with the first step toward a minimum estimate of the underemployment problem in the United States. B. We must add another group of persons not working full time at least 40 weeks a year and who are poor — the 1.2 million unrelated individuals. Only 28 percent of these persons were males under the age of 65, or about 337,000. Another 563,000 were females under that age. If these two figures are added to the 750,000 under-65 male heads of poor families who worked on less than a full-time basis 40 weeks or more, we arrive at a minimum figure of approximately 1.65 million persons (under-65 male family heads and under-65 unrelated individuals) who might be deemed as underemployed. C. But we cannot stop there. In 1966 there were also about 2.4 million family heads and about 540,000 unrelated individuals who worked 40 or more weeks in the previous year on a full-time basis, and were nevertheless poor. Approximately three-fourths of these persons were white, incidentally. The total minimum or conservative estimate, therefore, of underemployment among poor persons in the nation's labor force is roughly 4.6 million persons: 1.65 million under-65 male family heads and under-65 unrelated individuals working less than year round on a full-time basis 2.40 million family heads working year round, full time .54 million unrelated individuals working year round, full time 4.59 million, minimum estimate of underemployed This estimate omits (1) most of the aged who might be working and yet are poor; (2) a sizable number of female heads of families with the same workand-poverty characteristics; (3) working wives and children of the male heads of families included in the 4.6 million; and (4) the 86,000 under-65 poor males (family heads and unrelated individuals) unable to find any employment. Nearly 1.5 million poor families had more than one earner in the labor force during 1966. In other words, 45 percent of all the poor families with labor force participants depended on two or more family members for income (see Table I). |