4 WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER From Page 1 The Social Credit statement that “5% unemployment is good for Canada” is a monstrous lie. We challenge it as such for three good it is Inhumane 1. The statement regards the distress of five per cent of the work- ing force as a matter to be accepted. Actually, Mr. Hinman says that such distress is desirable. Unemployment for five per cent of the Canadian working force means unemployment for 300,000 persons. It means that 300,000 family breadwinners are without steady salary or wage income. Most unemployed have families which they must try to feed, shelter and clothe. If we take into account the size of the aver- age family, we find that five per cent unemployment in the working force places more than 900,000 persons—men, women and children—on the verge of destitution. If they get Unem- ployment Insurance benefits, or social assistance, they get nothing more than bare subsistence. We claim that it is a monstrous lie to claim that economic ill-health for 900,000 Canadians is good for the general health of the Canadian economy. lt is Unbelievable 2. The statement implies that the ranks of the unemployed are made up of people who are shiftless, who are out of work be- cause they don’t want to work. On the face of it, this is a mon- strous lie. Few people prefer idleness on a dole to steady work at a decent wage. In 1956, we averaged less than 200,000 unemployed. In 1960, we had three times as many, an average of 600,000. In 1961 the record will be still higher. No one can make us believe that in five short years over half a million of our fellow-workers have suddenly become so lazy or choosy that they won’t take jobs when offered jobs. The fact, ignored by Mr. Hinman, is that there are not nearly enough jobs to go round. This lie about the unemployed is not always publicly stated, but we have reason to believe that it is widely-held in official circles. lt Conceals the Truth 3. The statement was intended to make the public believe that unemployment is no worse than five per cent of the working force. The fact is that unemployment is much worse than five per cent. Unemployment during 1960 averaged seven per cent of the working force. Unemployment during the first nine months of 1961 aver- aged 7.8 per cent of the working force. Mr. Hinman was talking about the figures for September, one of the best months in the year for seasonal activity. Even at that time, unemployment at many points in Canada was much higher than 5%. A lot of workers, regarded by Mr. Hinman as shiftless, had grabbed at the chance of temporary seasonal work available in September. The seasonal work could not provide jobs for all the unemployed. The 5% unemployment, dismissed as negligible by Mr. Hinman, is a percentage of the working force. The working force in September 1961 included 367,000 employers, 600,000 self-employed, and 195,000 unpaid family workers—a total of 1,162,000. For all practical purposes these categories should be excluded when we measure the actual unemployment. We never hear of anyone asking for a job as an employer or as an unpaid family worker, or to be set up in a small shop. A much better standard of measurement is the labour mar- ket, the total number of people who want jobs and can’t get them. The percentage of unemployed in the labour market for the first nine months of 1961 averaged 9.4% as compared to 8.6% for the first nine months of 1960. Not only is unemployment worse than described, but it is steadily rising. All our statistics are based on the report of the Special Com- mittee of the Senate on Manpower and Employment, which de- scribed the situation as “the most pressing problem before the Canadian people.” ; The graphs which accompany this article were prepared by the Research Department of the Canadian Labour Congress, from the report of the Senate Committee, and the regular releases of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Organized labour cannot be accused of misrepresentation when describing the gravity of the situation. Only the politicians and employers have been guilty of this offence. Unemployment is Rising to Dangerous Heights As the discussion started about the September level, let us look at previous Septembers. In September 1961, 5.7% of those on the labour market were reported as unemployed. The average for August-September, 1946-1952 inclusive, was 2.7%, with a range of from 2.1 to 3.8%. reasons. PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Selected om ISH mane production 8 fewer jobs LEATHER - PRODS. oe TEXTILE PRODS. ome 1% TRANSPORTATION EQUIP 29% ; 12% more jobs WOOD PRODS. CLOTHING — NON-FERROUS METAL PRODS. PRINTING & PUB. PAPER PRODS. FOODS & BEVERAGES IRON & STEEL PRODS. AR . ee: : a 10% a » A i RUBBER PRODS OI% - oe | Ch | TOBACCO & PRODS. 80% G : . 4% fewer jobs ELECTRICAL APPARATUS & SUPPLIES CHEMICALS & ALLIED PRODS. NON-METALLIC MINER PRODS. RRODUCTS OF PETROLEUM & COAL The average for September, 1953-1957 inclusive, was 3.3%, with a range of from 2.3 to 4.4%. The average for September, 1958-1961 was 5.5%, with a range of from 4.4 to 6.2%. September 1961 was the second worst for unemployment since the war. The lowest figure for unemployment in September in the last four years is higher than any reported for any September 1946- 1957. It is obvious that seasonal work does not provide enough jobs for those who are unemployed. Recessions Not the Sole Cause The idea has been implanted in the public mind that unemploy- ment is either seasonal or merely the result of temporary reces- sions. These are also false views. Since the war, we have had four recessions. During each re- cession we have had higher unemployment. After each recession we have had a higher remaining level of unemployment. In the first recession, 1950, unemployment rose to 3.6% and fell to 2.4% in 1951. In the second recession, 1954, unemployment rose to 5.0% and dropped back to 3.0% in 1956. In the third recession, 1958, unemployment reached 7.5%, and dropped back to 5.4% in the recovery of 1959. In the fourth recession, December 1960 and February 1961, un- employment rose to 7.9%. The low point since has been 6.6% in September 1961. It will be noted that the high point of unemployment during each recession is higher than the previous high point, and that each low point is higher than the previous low point. After each reces- sion, production reached a new peak, but unemployment has not reached a new low. SEE “MONSTROUS LIE” PAGE 3