Jobs and Freedom
1
CAN we have jobs and freedom? Can we have reasonably steady jobs for all who want to work, allowing for some seasonal variations and shifting from job to job, and also have our traditional American freedom for each citizen? As I see it, the answer is, Yes —If. Yes — if we develop a cooperative united approach by our major economic groups to our national post-war problems, and if our government is active and alert in meeting new problems and in exercising leadership in the vigorous support of the free-enterprise system.
There is a very great need for increased unity in America. We need an agreement on objectives and on the steps to reach those objectives. In my view the over-all objective of the American system in the years ahead should be to furnish to all the men and women and children of America all the necessities of modern life, and to an increasing degree the comforts; and to do so on a basis that will contribute to their individual freedom of thought and action and, at the same time, assist in the steady march of progress of all mankind in a world at peace.
As the first principle toward the attainment of that objective, I propose that we in America, all of us, — government, labor, agriculture, and management, — champion, implement, and stimulate an expanding competitive American economic system of private capital, individual enterprise, and free workmen. To carry out this principle requires some readjustment in the thinking of all of us. It means placing opportunity above security on our list of priorities. It means that we must encourage and applaud the pioneer, the originator, the inventor, the risk taker.
We must not become a nation of security seekers, nor of selfish nationalists. We must be a nation of originality, of boldness, and of imagination. Take one recent specific example. When V-J Day arrived, we turned ‘our national attention to security for unemployment during the reconversion period. The emphasis was placed upon an increase in unemployment compensation. Clearly, that was a desirable measure, but how much more important it would have been to place the entire emphasis then, immediately after V-J Day, upon the necessity for housing and the opportunities this presented for jobs, for investments, for enterprise to begin immediately to expand housing in America. All building material in the hands of the Army and Navy should, at that time, have been promptly made available for housing. Governmental action should have taken the form of making available, by subsidized dismantling and shipping, the temporary housing facilities around defense plants. The opportunity in housing, rather than security and unemployment, should have been given the emphasis.
Another example of the wrong approach was the recent refusal of the Chicago City Council to license additional taxicabs for returning veterans. Everyone in Chicago has observed the acute shortage of taxicabs, and there has been a decided handicap to doing business in the city because of this shortage. Hundreds of returning veterans have wanted the opportunity to start up in business as taxicab owners and operators. But they were refused because of an old ordinance limiting to three thousand the number of cab permits until 1950. Security for the existing operators took precedence over the stimulating effect of opportunity in this great metropolitan city. Fortunately for Chicago, a determined protest by veterans applying for licenses resulted, after considerable delay, in some increase in licenses.
The question of whether there will be worth-while jobs for the ten to eleven million men returning from service will depend upon whether two or three thousand of them find the courage, the spirit, and the opportunity to start new businesses, new stores, new ventures which in turn will furnish jobs. Veterans with ingenuity will find such opportunities in the field of civilian aviation with its greatly expanded facilities; in small agencies for electric and radio sales, service, and repair; and in a wide range of transportation, service, and commercial activity. The huge housing program will call for skill, command, and economy in the contractors’ field; deep freeze and the airplane will make our larders rich; resort and recreation business the country over must expand in the relaxation of peace; new conveniences of home and of farm will be invented and manufactured; a variety of food and confection products will be originated and marketed.
It is almost humorous now to go back and read some of the writings of ten years ago about the lack of frontiers. I am reminded of the incident that was reported when a Japanese officer was fished out of the ocean after his ship had been sunk in one of the sudden raids of Admiral Halsey’s Third Fleet into the South China Sea. As he was brought up on the fantail of the destroyer, it was found that he could speak limited English. He said, “Tokyo Radio say Third Fleet all sunk. How come you all are way out here?”
Undoubtedly our enemies on more than one occasion during these last years of war have said to themselves, “ We thought that this was an economy that had reached its height, that had no more potentialities of expansion. Then how come this tremendous flow of materials and weapons?” It can well be said that the frontiers of our economic system are formed by our mental attitude and our unity, or lack of it, rather than by any limitation of science or of productivity.
2
To implement our over-all objectives, we must all of us, including labor and government, look upon the making of profits with approval. Labor must take pride in the success of its company, in the making of profits. Profits are the ignition system that makes our economic machine operate, producing supplies for all the people and making jobs for the workers. Profits must not be condemned by either government or labor.
This does not mean that abuses of profits are to be condoned. There must be a vigorous opposition to excess profits from monopolies, from unfair practices, from suppression of wages. But I believe the workmen of America should and will to an increasing degree take pride in working for a company that furnishes large quantities of products for their fellow workmen throughout the country at a price that all can pay, while itself maintaining good wages and good profits.
Likewise we must all of us, including capital and management and government, support strong unions. They are an essential part of the checks and balances of a strong economic system of private capitalism and democratic government. This does not mean that we should condone abuses in unions. There should be an increasing safeguarding of the rights of the individual workman. There should be increasing democracy and financial accountability in some unions now autocratically run. There should be a periodic choice of the officers of unions by secret ballot. There should be increased discipline within the ranks of some unions. There must be an effective insistence upon respect for contracts entered into.
There are many indications that when the present serious wage disputes between labor and management have been concluded, they will be followed by an increased contest over jurisdiction between unions. There can be no real justification for strikes as a weapon to be used between unions in a battle for jurisdiction over workingmen. We need a method for settling these jurisdictional disputes by peaceful judicial means. Government must provide labor courts with the power to make substantive decisions for the settlement of these jurisdictional disputes.
The basic right to strike must be maintained. It is an essential part of the continuance of the entire American system. The loss by labor of the right to strike would also lead in time to the loss of the right of private capital. It would mean that government would take over, and soon neither labor nor capital would be free. Some people annoyed or injured by strikes are inclined to conclude lightly that the right to strike should be curtailed. They do not realize that to take away the right to strike would be to impose a dictatorial power over labor.
But the right to strike should be very rarely used. It should be like the right to shoot in self-defense. It should be recognized by both labor and management that all disputes must be settled sometime and that both are much better off if settlement is made first, while production continues.
We all must also recognize the reasonable requirements of security. Security should occupy a secondary place, but it must nevertheless be fulfilled to a reasonable degree. There is nothing inconsistent between unemployment compensation and a freeenterprise system. Unemployment compensation should be promptly extended in its coverage, and made more adequate both in amount and duration. The same is true of old-age and survivor’s insurance. But, the government must carefully analyze the amount of unemployment compensation and justly administer the system so that it does not in practice actually encourage idleness if jobs are available.
The right of business to manage its affairs must be vigorously defended. Foremen and other supervisory personnel should be under the unquestioned, exclusive direction of management, and not of labor. The right of management to manage is just as important as the right of labor to strike. This right of management and the skill of management have been key factors in the attainment of the unexcelled production record of our economic system. It is from this productivity brought forth by skilled management that a high standard of living is attained.
There must also be an increasing amount of information to labor and to the general public about the financial facts of business. Times have changed. The splendid facilities for the dissemination of information very properly and happily make people want more information. The companies must adjust the conduct of their business to a greater amount of information to labor and to the public.
It does not balance to say in one breath that high productivity should be a major concern of labor, and in the next breath say that the profits of its company are none of labor’s business.
Some of our national concerns have for a number of years followed a new and intelligent policy of giving increased information, in a form that all can understand, regarding their operations, their gross income, and their division of receipts among the major items of cost. I view this as one of the best types of public relations. The approval of an informed public opinion is a tremendous asset. It must be the goal of the freeenterprise system. If the free-enterprise system depends upon secrecy and upon keeping from labor and public the vital facts of the results that are accrued from their own productivity, then the free-enterprise system is on difficult ground to maintain. But if, as I believe, the enterprise system can be thoroughly justified with full facts available to labor and the public, then it is truly on sound ground.
Just as labor is entitled to be informed to an increasing degree about the activities of business, so management is entitled to the right to inform its employees on any subject. In other words, the workingman should be entitled to the maximum of information and to the interpretation placed upon that information by both his employer and his union leader, and then should have an opportunity to make his own decisions in a free and American manner upon his contracts and conditions for work.
3
WE SHOULD not lose sight of the lessons of war. The miracle of war production was accomplished by turning to experienced management of private industry and giving it the tasks of managing the war industry. Under the early leadership of William Knudsen, the principle of insisting upon skilled management, even though it came from an unrelated field of industry, to take over the contractual agreement for turning out the weapons of war was vigorously followed. It was a good example of government functioning in accordance with the private-enterprise system. Contrast this successful procedure with that of the government itself endeavoring to build the plants, appointing governmental managers, and placing the employees on a governmental payroll. In instance after instance manufacturers of soap or of breakfast foods were given contracts to produce entirely different products for the prosecution of the war. The success of this method is evident to all of us. We should use a similar approach whenever we have unused manpower, in order to bring this manpower together in the accomplishment of needed public improvements.
Pennsylvania’s superhighway, Pittsburgh’s tunnel on the route from the city to the airport, New York’s parkway and superdrive along the Hudson River, Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive, are but a few examples of public projects that have been constructive and sound. There will be need for this type of project multiplied many times over in America in the next ten years.
Every city in the country needs highway arteries of the grade separation type. The congestion after our automobile production has been going for a year or two will be almost paralyzing. Nearly every major city needs increased air facilities, particularly modern air depots and administrative facilities. There is a major need for increased school facilities to take care of the large increase in enrollment that will result from the increased birth rate through the last five years. The blighted areas of our cities should be cleared out and the land should be made available for rebuilding and redeveloping by private capital on a basis comparable to the original development of these cities. Increased hospital facilities are needed in almost every major city in the country. Extensive plans could be prepared for this type of activity, and the government should be ready to move in promptly and vigorously, utilizing Federal, state, and local administration, as we approach the catching-up period of accumulated wartime consumer demand.
Semi-stagnant pools of capital must be utilized. A conservative portion of the vast resources of the insurance companies of the nation, with over three billion dollars pouring in annually, must be used in an increasingly stimulating manner.
The housing program of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York City is worthy of high praise. It is an example of the stimulating use of the resources of capital that has accumulated in the insurance companies’ treasuries. These are projects carried on under individual management by free enterprise. They meet a vital need and do so in an effective, profitable manner. They are a demonstration of an intelligent and new use of capital that brings together various aspects of our economic system for the benefit of the people as a whole. Commercial banks should also be encouraged to temper the excessive caution that has followed the banking disaster of 1932.
4
I o THOSE who are inclined to say that the system of private capital and individual enterprise and free workmen has already failed, has already shown such gross inadequacies that it must be changed, my response is that, on the contrary, it has shown such great strength that it should be strongly supported. It is not a historical accident that the 6 per cent of the world’s population within our borders produced one fourth of the world’s goods. Furthermore, our system has not even yet had a full opportunity to demonstrate itself under modern conditions of peace.
To those who would press ever for a further extension of actual government operation of enterprise in a mixed economy, and who point to the trends in other parts of the world, I say directly that I do not believe in the nationalization of any industry or commerce or institution. I might add that there appear to be ample experiments of this type going on now in the world. The great need for the future of mankind, and the best prospect for the future of the people of America, is a vigorous demonstration of what freedom can do with individual enterprise, private capital, and free workmen. To those who feel that one or more of these should be maintained without the others, I express my conviction that they all go together.
But perhaps the best response to those who would turn progressively away from our basic system as we think of it, and who seek a “mixed economy,”is to say, Let us all agree upon a thorough ten-year test. Let us begin promptly to join together — government, labor, business, and agriculture — and to do everything possible to champion and encourage and develop the basic American system. At the end of ten years of united support, let us observe the result, and then make our decisions as to future policies. I am confident that if we do this it will result in a clearcut demonstration of the superiority and high value of our system to the people of America and of the world.
It is not possible to generalize the point of view of the eleven million returning servicemen. Neither can anyone be their spokesman. Their experiences in war have been as diverse as their backgrounds in peace. Their outlooks now are those of eleven million individuals and not of a bloc of eleven million veterans. But I do believe that these men, after spending three, four, and five years in this bitter and tragic conflict, after observing the productive results of our American system in the cruel test of war, will almost unanimously support the position of giving alert, complete, unwavering support for such a ten-year test of the basic American system of private capital and individual enterprise and free workmen.
5
THE President has complained, with some justification, that the economic groups are not fulfilling their promises of coöperation made to him after V-J Day. He has contrasted this with the degree of progress made by Congress and the people in their participation in world affairs — by their adherence to the United Nations Charter and to various subsidiary organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the Bretton Woods Agreements) and the Food and Agricultural Organization.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that this unity was reached through a bipartisan approach and the broadest possible discussion of the issues. We need that same kind of approach to our major postwar economic problems. The labor-management conference was a failure. It was clear from the very outset that it would be a failure. It brought together only the two narrow economic groups that were concerned in the immediate phase of a problem. They did not come to grips with the major questions of post-war wage and price policies.
What we have needed in this post-war period is a broad bipartisan economic conference, including leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties in the House and Senate, and including leadership from our major economic groups, — labor, capital, and agriculture, — and including some of the outstanding economists of the country and representatives of the Federal administration. Such a conference should tackle the major questions of future wage and price levels, their relationship to the rest of the world, long-term sources of raw materials, and our part in contributing to a healthy world economy. It should seek broad answers as to how we can best fulfill the tremendous housing need of at least the next five years. It should seek the best method of supporting the prices of agricultural products and yet contribute to the food supply and trade of the world.
These basic economic questions require an overwhelming unity of support of the American people just as the major problems of the war required it. The answers can be attained only through the broadest type of conference, in which all major elements of thought are represented, and with full and free discussion by the people as a whole. There has not been action on the domestic program of the Administration in Congress because there is no agreement in the country on its desirability or the correctness of its methods of solving the difficulties that have arisen.
The membership of such a conference should be such that the people of the country as a whole, of all political parties and of all walks of life, would have overwhelming confidence in its recommendations. During a sixty-day period while this conference meets, labor should be requested to renew the nostrike pledge.
The major cause of the wave of strikes in the country has been the lack of an accepted national policy on the interrelated economic problems of wages, prices, and production. Government in a democracy should not decree such a policy, but it should take the lead in formulating the policy. This is particularly true when the scarcity of goods makes it necessary that there be temporary government price controls in place of competitive price controls. To fail to exercise that leadership and foresight means that the policy is formed in a violent clash between economic forces, resulting in danger to the entire economic system.
To seek to work out these policies through industrial warfare is a dangerous practice. Stoppage of production increases the danger of inflation. It also results in the dissipation of our accumulated savings on frivolous purposes. It builds up class tension and hatreds that are fundamentally dangerous to our way of life.
A review of the statements and hints and suggestions of the government since V-J Day, beginning with the removal of governmental control over wages and working conditions and labor relations, the disjointed statements from various departments of conflicting amounts that wages could be raised, the talk of the necessity of cooperation and of real collective bargaining, the rumors and reports, all add up to a stimulation of industrial warfare as a method of settling basic economic questions that need the broadest and most statesmanlike consideration by the leadership, and support by the country as a whole,
I know there are those who say that there were also many strikes after the last war. That is correct. And there also were an inflationary boom and a very serious crash and a depression and millions of unemployed in the decades after the last war. We want to avoid that entire series of events of economic disorder. One of the first steps in avoiding it is to keep the wheels of production turning, avoid strikes and stoppages, and avoid the inflationary rush which builds up bubbles that sooner or later will burst.
As to the bipartisan nature of the conference which I have urged the President to call, I know that some politicians in my party would say that it is a political mistake. They would say that it would place the Republican Party in the position of sharing the responsibility for working out these very difficult post-war economic problems and that it is smarter to let the Administration struggle with these difficulties and to watch the strikes flare up and the economic disorders arise, to permit dissension to increase between government and labor, and then to use all these things in future elections.
That is not my idea of the way in which the American political and economic system should operate.
Both parties must share in the responsibility of major decisions of government of a kind that require the overwhelming support of the people of all walks of life to make them effective. The responsibility, to be constructive, rests with equal weight upon the minority party and the majority party under the American political system. Here again the lessons of wartime should be kept in mind. Our remarkable success in war was in no small part due to the joint participation in decisions and support by both political parties. And yet everyone seemed immediately to want to shrug off this constructive unity of action the moment V-J Day arrived. There can be constructive campaigning without harmful disunity. Many problems of peace require a joint approach just as do the problems of war. We need a new and critical examination of the remark, “Politics as usual.” Political leadership in either party which places its party welfare above the welfare of the country should be set aside as out of keeping with the realistic tasks and problems and responsibilities of modern America.
The broad approach to these problems should eliminate aimless talks and petty feuds. The attention of each in the conference should be directed first to the question: What will best serve the general public and the general welfare of America? Only after answering that question can the various economic and political groups interpret their relationship to that constructive national result.
As we look to the future, the basic factors are very favorable. Our country has been untouched by enemy action — thank God! There is a tremendous pent-up demand for goods of all kinds. There is a splendid trained labor supply in good health. There is ample capital. There is over 115 billion dollars in individual savings, and at least an equal amount in the savings of business. We have the raw materials. This decade should be marked by new jobs, new products, new fortunes, new unions, new managers, new enterprises. It should be marked by productivity of men which exceeds all previous peacetime accomplishments anywhere in the world.
Capitalism need not be, and in fact must not be, narrow or selfish or cold-blooded. There is no basic reason why alert modern managers cannot see to it that the great company with thousands of employees has policies and practices that are as human, as warm, and as alert for the welfare of its men and women and for the human relationships as does the ownermanager of the little shop with five workmen.
The organization of a union should not mean that the responsibility for the welfare of the employees is taken over entirely by the union. The management of business and the leadership of unions should jointly share a heavy responsibility with government for the good housing and the health and the happiness of the workmen. Events that are milestones of happiness or of sadness in the life of an individual workman should be recognized by the big company as well as by the small shop owner. Management should never forget for a day that labor is not simply a union. Labor is not simply a commodity. Labor is people — men and women — fellow citizens.