Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16989342
label
Unemployment (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16989342
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Unemployment (2)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Employment statistics
Legislation
Manpower policy
Unemployment
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16989342
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-03-01
month
3
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
a7f1fc26c0e225cb
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 36, folder "Unemployment (2)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 36 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
L. WEDNESDAY. APRIL 7, 1976
is
SJ
FORD
The Unemployment Issue
GERAL
By PETER F. DRUCKER
black teenagers stays in school Stiff, there
fairly small area south of Stockholm.
As the election campaign heats up. it is
are only about 1.8 million black teenagers
would not work for the continental United
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE COCSI
LIGN MEMORANDE
LOG NO.:
Delia
April 26, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Jim Cannon
Bill Seidman
Max Friedersdorf
Mike Duval
Jack Mar sh
Tim Austin
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
TODAY ou April 26.
Time: 4 P.M.
SUBJECT:
James T. Lynn memo of 4/25/76 re
Extension of Temporary Unemployment
Compensation Programs
FORD is LIBRARY
ACTION REQUESTED:
X
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
4/26 176
We
regret
the
short
time
given
for
review
of
this
issue
1.Fabled
the but President OMB Special has Supplante Approve requested this UnamploymenT, afternoon Approve that logment this optio package option de go forward to
2.
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Jim Connor
telephone the Stoff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
DAVID LISS
ons
SUBJECT:
Jim Lynn's "Extension of Temporary
Unemployment Compensation Programs
I concur with OMB's recommendation (Option 1) on the Special
Unemployment Assistance (SUA) issue. The eligibility loophole
to be closed would make eligibility in each instance conform
to the existing State law. At the moment, in some States,
Federal benefits under SUA can exceed benefits under the State
plan because of the way wage records are counted.
I am uneasy with OMB's recommendation (Option 2) on the Federal
Supplemental Benefits (FSB) issue. Substantively it is the right
position to say that extended benefits should not be prolonged
indefinitely. There is evidence that extended benefits them-
selves are a factor in leading to longer unemployment and a higher
unemployment rate. The problem is that the new Congressional
budget process and the unlikelihood of serious Congressional
action this fall force us to deal now with what will be the
situation litterally a year from now.
The President can be against bad "job creation" bills and still
be for jobs and I think his message on public service jobs and
public works programs is being understood. It is harder to be
against aid to the unemployed at a time when unemployment is still
running at 7.5%.
I think it important that we convey the message that we are
opposed to action now because it is unnecessary now and there is
really no reason to address this issue now except that Congress
has chosen to have hearings. We should emphasize that we will
keep close watch next fall and winter and would not hesitate to
act then should it be necessary -- as we acted when we took the
initiative to propose FSB in the first place.
Page 2
I would, therefore, concur with the OMB recommendation but
suggest that DOL be instructed to emphasize in its testimony the
fact that this is really not the time to talk about extending a
program which has a year to run and which may not need extension.
We want to be sure the Administration is not said to be against
helping people.
U
Labon
Replice 4/28/26 Edention by phone we
Dear Ed:
I can certainly appreciate the Tow doncern which prompted
consider
your letter about the youth unemployment problem and
the proposals for a Civilian Conservation Corps.
idea.
The Administration is sensitive to the hight levels of
youth unemployment. The President commented on the
difficult nature of this problem when he transmitted
June
his request to the Congress for $528 million to support
some 888, 100 jobs for disadvantaged youth in the coming
summer months. However, we do not believe the Civilian
Conservation Corps approach is a good idea for several
reasons.
The issue of youth unemployment is very complex, and
calls for attention to more than the absolute numbers
unemployed at any given time. Some of those shown as
unemployed are members of households where there is
already one adult working full time, and whose added
income, while desirable, is not essential to the fam-
ily's well being. Others are youths whose future
development is really best served not by employment,
but by continuing education. Still others, although
counted as unemployed by the monthly surveys, are
really engaged in the normal movement from job to job
which is typical of the ways young people learn about
work.
Another set of issues relates to the kind of jobs our
economy makes available for youth and changing percep-
tions among the young about the desirablity of such
jobs.
The Administration has been seeking ways to understand
better the employment situation of youth, with special
attention to the relationship of youth to work and to
education. At the President's request, the National
Page 2
Commission for Manpower Policy has a major project under-
way to develop better insights into this issue. The
Secretary of Labor has been asked by the President to take
the lead among Federal agencies in trying new program
approaches and other devices to help communities work with
all levels of government to address this problem.
It is also important to keep in mind that we have many
income replacement and manpower programs now that did not
exist in the 1930's. Chief among these is the network of
unemployment compensation programs. These and other pro-
grams have been key to maintaining income in many families.
In addition, we have a range of employment and training
programs already in place, For example, under Title I of
the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act over 165,000
youths were enrolled in various types of work experience,
training and other services in the first half of fiscal
year 1976 alone. Other youths are in the many programs of
the Community Services Administration and HEW.
Finally, the cost of a Civilian Conservation Corps-type
program would be enormous if it were to enroll any signif-
icant numbers. The pressures on the Federal Budget are
already very great. Recent Congressional action on fiscal
year 1977 budget resolution levels suggest that amounts
substantially over the President's Budget may be sought by
the Congress even without a major new spending program like
a Civilian Conservation Corps. Added Federal spending, and
its resultant increases in the deficit, may only work
against the gains we expect the economy to make. It is
these gains which are critical for material improvement in
the employment for all workers.
There are no easy solutions to the problems of youth unem-
ployment and we are constantly searching for ways to do a
better job. I do not think, however, that a Civilian
Conservation Corps is an approach which is desirable.
Sincerely,
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The Honorable Edward I. Koch
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Unimp represt
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
FROM:
DAVID LISS my
SUBJECT:
DOL Plan to Help Relocate the
Unemployed
I thought you would be interested in the attached
DOL press release which describes a project which
will provide relocation assistance for those
seeking employment. This is an idea I believe you
have talked about and may have mentioned to Bill
Usery.
David
Good Amert friow
This
Attachment
CC:
Jim Cavanaugh
Art Quern
Bill Diefenderfer
Allen Moore
NEWS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF INFORMATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20210
Contact: Office - (202) 376-6905
USDL -- 76-744
Jack Hashian
Home - (703) 938-2343
FOR RELEASE: 12 noon EDT
Arthur Jaffey
Friday, April 30, 1976
Home - (301) 424-2106
LABOR SECRETARY ANNOUNCES PILOT PLAN TO ASSIST JOBLESS
An experimental program to help unemployed workers find jobs away from
home and pay their relocation expenses was announced today by Secretary of
Labor W.J. Usery, Jr.
Usery announced plans for the three-year experimental and demonstration
project, which will be conducted in eight southeastern states, at the Law Day
observance of the Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University, Macon, Ga.
Plans call for 1,000 persons annually to be provided relocation assis-
tance through selected local Job Service offices in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
Financial assistance to relocate is being provided in the form of long
distance telephone referral service, funds for travel to explore job oppor-
tunities, and funds for moving to the site of a new job.
Relocation assistance grants will cover the travel expenses of the
individual and his family and the expenses of moving furniture, up to a
maximum of $1,500. The maximum direct financial assistance provided any one
individual will be $2,500, counting travel for job exploration and other
miscellaneous relocation costs.
The Job Search and Relocation Assistance Pilot Project will serve reg-
ular applicants to the local offices of the Federal-state public employment
(more)
-2-
services (Job Service offices) for whom local jobs are not available and who
wish to relocate.
Eligible for the special assistance are persons registered with a
local Job Service office in one of the eight states who:
-- Are unemployed or underemployed due to lack of work in the area.
-- Have completed an exhaustive search for employment opportunties
within commuting distance of their homes.
-- Have not refused to accept suitable employment in the area.
-- Are job ready for employment as a result of work experience or re-
cent training.
-- Are not eligible for relocation assistance under any other federally
funded program.
Information obtained from the Job Bank system of a state Job Service
office will be used as "leads" to suitable out-of-area job openings. Individ-
uals can be referred to jobs paying at least $3.00 an hour.
Extensive evaluation of the project will be carried out by Westat, Inc.,
of Rockville, Md., under contract to the Labor Department's Employment and
Training Administration. This evaluation will include both the project's
administrative processes and procedures and the project's impact on partici-
pants and employers. In addition, an analysis of the project's cost effec-
tiveness and net economic impact will be made.
The experience gained from the pilot project, estimated to cost about
$1.5 million a year, will help determine whether a broader, nationwide re-
location assistance program would be desirable, and what procedures and tech-
niques might most advantageously be incorporated into such an expanded program.
//////
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
DAVID LISSY
SUBJECT:
Employment/Unemployment Statistics
Unemployment rate is 7.5%, same as in prior month.
7 million persons are unemployed, about the same as
last month.
Employment rose 710 thousand since last month.
Total employment now stands at 87.4 million persons,
a new high.
Davis
FORD : LIBRARY 01/839
Good
Thank very
with
for
Tabn
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON
MAY 1 0 1976
Honorable Carl D. Perkins
Chairman
Committee on Education and Labor
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Department of Labor takes this opportunity to comment on
H.R. 10138, a bill "To create the Young Adult Conservation
Corps to complement the Youth Conservation Corps."
H.R. 10138 would amend the Youth Conservation Corps Act by
adding at the end thereof a new title II, creating a Young
Adult Conservation Corps to provide up to 12 months of
employment for those aged 19 through 23 in conservation work
and other projects of a public nature on the lands and
waters of the United States. An initial 1-year planning
period, followed by 4 years of program operation, would be
provided. Planned enrollments would range from 100,000 in
the first year to 500,000 in the fourth year, preference
being given to applicants and projects within counties
having a rate of unemployment equal to or in excess of 6
percent for 3 consecutive months. A total of $9.15 billion
would be authorized for planning and operation of the
program over a 5-year period. The bill further provides
that 30 percent of the funds appropriated would be used for
grants to support State Young Adult Conservation Corps
programs. The Young Adult Conservation Corps, like the
present Youth Conservation Corps, would be administered by
the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
No new legislative authority is necessary to provide for the
kind of public service employment effort envisioned in H.R.
10138. Under the basic Comprehensive Employment and Train-
ing Act (CETA) programs administered by this Department,
local communities may undertake this type of program.
Unlike this bill, CETA permits local communities to decide
themselves how best to spend limited funds. In fiscal year
- 2 -
1975, 62 percent, or 695,000 participants, in CETA Title I
programs were under 22 years of age. In addition, title IV
of CETA provides special employment and training opportunities
for young adults, through age 22, in the Job Corps. In
1975, 45,800 individuals were served by the Job Corps.
Not only would H.R. 10138 constitute costly duplication of
our CETA efforts, it would not provide for appropriate CETA-
type safeguards requiring enrollees to be unemployed or
poor. We feel that in this kind of activity, limited
Federal funds should be directed to those most in need.
We also question whether this program will provide enrollees
with the "training and fundamental skills required to enter
the labor force at a competitive level" as stated in section
201 (2). Job Corps enrollees, and other CETA participants
are offered assistance not provided for in H.R. 10138:
counseling, educational opportunities, skill training etc.
H.R. 10138 would permit the 12-month employment period to
consist of two or more separate periods. It is possible
that the effect of this could be to authorize a program
GERALD
essentially geared to short-term income-supplement projects
for students on school breaks.
We also note that section 203 (a) (3) of the bill stipulates
that wages for Young Adult Conservation Corps enrollees
should be set at the Federal minimum wage under section
6 (a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but that
"consideration shall be given to housing, transportation,
food, medical and other direct benefits of employment,
except that supplies and equipment shall not be benefits of
employment." The purpose and intended effect of this
provision are unclear. It should be noted that under
section 3 (m) of the FLSA, the reasonable cost or fair value
of board, lodging or other facilities customarily furnished
by an employer may already be considered wages for the
purpose of the FLSA. We also note that the bill would not
provide Davis-Bacon labor standards protection for assisted
construction unless such work was performed under Federal
contract or subcontract. We are not certain, however,
whether any such unprotected construction work is contemplated
under the bill.
- 3 -
Finally, while the Federal Government has an important role
in providing some emergency jobs during periods of high
unemployment, it is the private sector, in rural as well as
urban areas, that must provide the long term solution. The
Administration's primary approach to unemployment is through
Federal policies that stimulate the economy and that provide
lasting employment in the private sector. Enactment of H.R.
10138 would not be consistent with these policies. The
large Federal expenditure, totaling $9.15 billion, authorized
under the bill would contribute to inflationary pressures.
For the foregoing reasons, we oppose the enactment of H.R.
10138.
The Office of Managment and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the presentation of this report and that enact-
ment of H.R. 10138 would not be in accord with the program
of the President.
Sincerely,
Secretary of Labol
NEWS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Washington, D.C. 20212
USDL -76-838
Contact: S. Small (202) 523-1807
FOR RELEASE: 11:00 A.M. (E.D.T.)
K. D. Hoyle (202) 523-1913
Monday, May 17, 1976
home: 333-1384
FORD
STATE AND AREA UNEMPLOYMENT
GERALD
MARCH 1976
LIBRARY
Unemployment declined from February to March in most States and large
metropolitan areas in the United States, according to figures reported today by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Of the 47 States and the
District of Columbia for which data are available, 43 registered decreases in both the
level and rate of unemployment.
Because of data limitations, a consistent time series for each State and
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area is not available; therefore, the data are not
seasonally adjusted. In the absence of seasonally adjusted data, it is not possible
to determine whether the improvement in the employment situation in any State is due to
temporary seasonal factors or underlying trends.
These estimates are the product of a Federal-State cooperative program in which
State Employment Security agencies prepare labor force and unemployment estimates under
concepts, definitions, and technical procedures established by the BLS.
The national unemployment statistics published monthly by the BLS are derived from
the Current Population Survey (CPS), a survey of households. However, the size of the
current CPS sample is not sufficient to generate monthly State and area estimates.
Therefore, statistics derived from State unemployment insurance operations, as well as
adjustment factors from the CPS and other sources, are used to calculate State and
area estimates.
Because of the smaller size of the areas involved as well as limitations of the
data inputs used, the State and area estimates are not of the same statistical quality
as the national estimates. A fuller explanation of the technical procedures used to
develop these estimates will appear in the May issue of the BLS periodical, Employment
and Earnings.
Labor force and unemployment by State and selected areas
(Numbers in thousands)
Unemployment
Labor force
Percent of
Number
State and areas
labor force
Jan.
Feb.r
Mar.P
Jan.r
Feb.r
Mar.P
Jan.
Feb.r
Mar.P
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
ALABAMA
1,422.6
1,428.5
1,433.7
107.0
105.6
102.2
7.5
7.4
7.1
Birmingham
344.5
342.8
342.5
25.7
25.2
24.2
7.5
7.3
7.1
Huntsville
117.4
117.4
118.5
9.3
9.2
9.2
8.0
7.8
7.8
Mobile
156.2
156.6
156.4
9.2
9.6
9.6
5.9
6.1
6.1
Montgomery
101.0
100.6
101.0
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.2
Tuscaloosa
51.0
51.0
50.8
3.3
3.3
3.0
6.6
6.5
5.8
ALASKA
182.7
184.3
195.4
21.1
20.7
22.0
11.6
11.2
11.3
ARIZONA
879.3
877.5
880.4
82.9
79.6
77.4
9.4
9.1
8.8
Phoenix
515.8
515.2
515.8
50.0
48.5
46.9
9.7
9.4
9.1
Tucson
167.3
168.5
169.3
12.3
12.3
12.1
7.3
7.3
7.2
ARKANSAS
810.8
818.7
832.5
64.0
60.9
56.3
7.9
7.4
6.8
Fayetteville-Springdale
61.1
61.4
61.2
4.6
4.3
3.8
7.6
7.0
6.2
Fort Smith
71.8
72.4
72.2
6.2
6.6
5.2
8.7
9.2
7.2
Little Rock-North Little Rock
156.7
155.6
157.6
8.8
7.6
8.3
5.6
4.9
5.3
Pine Bluff
30.6
30.9
31.2
2.3
2.4
2.3
7.5
7.9
7.5
CALIFORNIA
9,365.0
9,399.4
9,436.2
986.8
1,012.7
982.4
10.5
10.8
10.4
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove
800.2
797.0
799.9
60.1
60.4
58.3
7.5
7.6
7.3
Bakersfield
137.6
135.2
141.4
11.9
12.8
13.7
8.7
9.5
9.7
Fresno
208.0
202.7
203.2
21.7
22.1
21.3
10.4
10.9
10.5
Les Angeles-Long Beach
3,231.0
3,245.8
3,250.7
322.5
325.5
313.7-
10.0
10.0
9.7
Modesto
103.4
108.5
105.4
17.0
20.5
18.4
16.4
18.9
17.5
Ownard-Simi Valley-Ventura
167.8
171.2
172.6
17.1
17.8
16.6
10.2
10.4
9.6
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
492.5
495.1
496.7
52.3
53.7
52.1
10.6
10.8
10.5
Sacramento
365.6
368.6
373.3
36.7
37.4
38.8
10.0
10.1
10.4
Salinas-Seaside-Monterey
94.6
96.4
98.7
10.7
11.9
11.2
11.3
12.3
11.3
San Diego
626.0
621.6
627.6
75.2
76.9
74.4
12.0
12.4
11.9
San Francisco-Oakland
1,465.2
1,465.1
1,468.9
169.2
170.6
167.9
11.5
11.6
11.4
San Jose
580.6
585.5
588.1
53.7
57.5
54.9
9.2
9,8
9.3
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc
111.9
116.2
117.3
8.5
10.8
9.5
7.6
9.3
8.1
Santa Rosa
95.6
97.6
99.2
12.1
12.6
13.0
12.7
12.9
13.1
Stockton
130.5
132.4
132.7
16.6
17.6
17.4
12,7
13.3
13,1
Vallejo-Fairfield-Nape
98.2
99.5
100.4
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.6
COLORADO
1,115.0
1,118.0
1,136.3
73.0
69.8
76.0
6.5
6,2
6.7
Denver-Boulder
670.3
669.3
679.6
49.7
46.3
50.0
7.4
6.9
7.4
CONNECTICUT
1,460.0
1,445.4
1,438.1
161.7
153.7
144.9
11.1
10.6
10.2
Bridgeport
185.3
184.0
181.7
23.9
22.6
20.9
12.9
12.31
11.5
Hartford
343.8
341.9
339.4
31.9
31.6
29.6
9.3
9.2
8.7
New Britain
72.1
70.8
69.9
9.2
8.6
8.1
12.8
12.2
11.6
New Haven-West Haven
193.8
192.8
193.3
20.9
20.8
20.3
10.8
10.8
10.5
Stamford
105.1
103.5
103.1
9.0
8.0
7.6
8.6
7.7
7.4
Waterbury
109.1
106.3
105.1
14.8
13.0
12.1
13.5
12.2
11.5
DELAWARE
242.0
243.9
243.9
20.3
20.1
19.0
8.4
8.2
7.8
Wilmington
222.0
221.4
221.8
18.7
17.3
17.4
8.4
7.8
7.8
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
340.3
339.2
341.1
28.3
27.0
26.9
8.3
8.0
7.9
Washington SMSA'
1,429.0
1,426.0
1,434.1
86.0
82.0
81.7
6.0
5.7
5.7
FLORIDA
3,497.9
3,497.1
3,491.1
389.1
384.0
370.1
11.1
11.0
10.6
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
347.2
343.3
343.1
53.9
51.0
46.6
15.5
14.9
13.6
Jacksonville
294.4
285.4
285.3
20.0
20.3
19.7
7.0
7.1
6.9
Miami
698.7
698.9
695.7
82.0
80.0
78.3
11.7
11.5
11.3
Orlando
264.7
265.8
263.2
31.5
31.9
29.0
11.9
12.0
11.0
Pensacola
101.5
101.3
100.9
7.0
7.0
6.2
6.9
7.0
6.1
Tampa-St Petersburg
528.1
530.7
529.0
61.9
62.8
59.2
11.7
11.8
11.2
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton
196.2
196.6
193.1
24.4
25.1
23.6
12.4
12.8
12.2
GEORGIA
2,081.3
2,080.5
2,083.4
169.9
163.4
151.3
8.2
7.9
7.3
Atlanta
803.9
800.5
800.0
74.7
71.0
65.2
9.3
8.9
8.2
Augusta
116.8
116.5
116.1
9.3
9.1
8.5
7.9
7.8
7.3
Columbus
84.4
84.3
84.2
6.4
6.3
5.8
7.6
7.4
6.8
Macon
17.6
97.4
97.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.5
Savannah
78.6
78.1
78.5
6.0
5.8
5.5
7.6
7.5
7.0
See footnotes at end of table
NOTE All data are provisional. They are subject to revision as new benchmark information
becomes available. Data refer to place of residence
Labor force and unemployment by State and selected areas-Continued
(Numbers in thousands)
Unemployment
Labor force
Percent of
State and area
Number
labor force
Jan. I
Feb.r
Mar.P
Jan. r
Feb.r
Mar.P
Jan. r
Feb. :
Mar.P
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
HAWAU
355.8
359.1
363.9
29.6
31.1
32.6
8.3
8.7
9.0
Honolulu
284.8
287.6
292.4
22.2
23.6
25.4
7.8
8.2
8.7
IDAHO
348.2
349.0
343.8
27.7
28.8
27.7
8.0
8.3
8.1
Boise City
70.4
70.7
71.0
3.9
3.7
3.2
5.5
5.2
4.5
ILLINOIS
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Bloomington-Normal
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Chicago
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Davenport-Rock Island-Mojine
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Decatur
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Peoria
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Rockford
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Springfield
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
INDIANA
2,345.1
2,336.8
2,343.3
184.0
174.4
159.3
7.8
7.5
6.8
Evansville
122.1
121.9
121.6
8.9
8.1
6.6
7.3
6.7
5.4
Fort Wayne
172.7
168.6
170.1
16.0
12.7
12.8
9.3
7.5
7.5
Gary-Hammond-East Chicago
271.5
268.9
269.5
22.9
19.9
19.1
8.4
7.4
7.1
Indianapolis
527.1
524.4
525.2
32.1
32.9
31.7
6.1
6.3
6.0
Muncie
54.1
54.0
53.8
4.8
4.7
4.2
8.9
8.7
7.7
South Bend
129.1
129.1
129.9
8.1
8.4
8.0
6.2
6.5
6.1
Terre Haute
77.1
76.6
76.7
5.7
5.1
5.0
7.4
6.7
6.5
IOWA
1,261.4
1,267.1
1,288.4
83.8
83.2
79.5
6.6
6.6
6.2
Cedar Rapids
75.5
75.7
76.5
4.7
4.6
4.6
6.2
6.1
6.1
Des Moines
158.2
158.0
158.8
10.1
10.3
10.2
6.4
6.5
6.4
Dubuque
40.2
40.0
40.2
3.3
3.0
3.1
8.2
7.6
7.7
Sioux City
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Waterloo-Cedar Falls
59.7
59.9
60.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
8.3
8.3
8.2
KANSAS
1,029.7
1,039.4
1,049.7
49.8
48.0
43.9
4.8
4.6
4.2
Togeka
83.0
83.2
83.0
5.0
4.8
3.8
6.1
5.8
4.6
Wichita
185.2
184.5
184.9
11.3
10.9
10.2
6.1
5.9
5.5
KENTUCKY
1,385.5
1,396.5
1,396.1
106.5
111.9
103.7
7.7
8.0
7.4
Lexington-Fayette
138.6
138.7
141.3
5.7
6.2
5.7
4.1
4.5
4.0
Louisville
386.3
383.9
378.4
37.7
37.1
33.0
9.8
9.7
8.7
LOUISIANA
1,420.2
1,431.4
1,430.1
104.6
105.2
98.8
7.4
7.3
6.9
Baton Rouge
175.1
174.4
175.0
10.0
9.3
9.1
5.7
5.3
5.2
Lake Charles
57.2
57.1
57.0
5.2
5.0
4.8
9.1
8.7
8.3
Monroe
48.6
47.9
47.8
4.6
4.1
3.6
9.4
8.6
7.6
New Orleans
429.7
433.5
429.4
31.1
32.6
30.3
7.2
7.5
7.1
Shreveport
138.2
138.5
138.2
9.9
10.5
9.9
7.1
7.6
7.1
MAINE
425.3
423.3
425.3
43.9
42.1
40.3
10.3
9.9
9.5
Lewiston-Auburn
33.1
32.8
32.8
3.1
2.9
2.6
9.4
8.8
7.9
Portland
75.1
75.1
76.1
5.8
5.6
6.0
7.7
7.5
7.9
MARYLAND
1,827.1
1,820.7
1,831.9
140.7
136.0
132.4
7.7
7.5
7.2
Baltimore
929.6
924.0
927.8
79.2
74.0
73.0
8.5
8.0
7.9
MASSACHUSETTS
2,716.8
2,699.0
2,693.8
303.2
286.6
264.4
11.2
10.6
9.8
Boston
1,326.5
1,316.7
1,314.1
136.3
131.4
121.0
10.3
10.0
9.2
Brockton
75.3
76.1
76.0
8.7
8.5
7.7
11.6
11.2
10.1
Fall River
72.4
71.9
71.7
8.5
7.7
7.2
11.7
10.7
10.0
Lawrence-Haverhilt
133.8
134.4
132.8
18.3
16.8
15.4
13.7
12.5
11.6
Lowell
109.6
103.7
103.8
13.4
12.0
11.2
12.2
11.6
10.8
New Bedford
80.4
76.7
77.2
11.8
9.6.
9.2
14.7
12.5
11.9
Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke'
263.1
264.2
264.9
29.7
27.2
24.8
11.3
10.3
9.4
Worcester
186.7
186.6
186.9
20.3
19.2
18.5
10.9
10.3
9.0
MICHIGAN
3,858.0
3,846.7
3,854.0
470.8
450.1
438.7
12.2
11.7
11.4
Ann Arbor
122.7
123.5
124.7
12.1
11.6
12.0
9.9
9.4
9.6
Battle Creek
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Bay City
50.2
50.3
49.8
5.7
5,9
5.6
11.3
11.7
11.2
Detroit
1,829.5
1,809.1
1,821.1
223.6
213.9
208.4
12.2
11.8
11.4
Flint
212.5
212.3
204.1
24.7
23.4
22.9
11.6
11.0
11.2
See footnotes at end of table.
NOTE: All data are provisional. They are subject to revision as new benchmark information
becomes available. Data refer to place of residence.
Labor force and unemployment by State and selected areas-Continued
(Numbers in thousands)
Unemployment
Labor force
Percent of
Number
State and area
labor force
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.P
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.P
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.P
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
MICHIGAN-Continued
Grand Rapids
259.4
259.6
258.1
25.5
24.2
23.3
9.8
9.3
9.0
Jackson
65.6
65.5
64.3
8.0
7.4
7.5
12.1
11.3
11.6
Kalamazoo-Portage
122.2
122.8
124.6
11.4
10.6
10.3
9.3
8.6
8.2
Lansing-East Lansing
203.7
206.7
207.8
22.5
22.1
19.5
11.0
10.7
9.4
Muskegon-Nortan Shores-Muskegon Heights
72.7
72.9
76.0
9.6
8.8
8.5
13.2
12.1
11.2
Saginaw
94.5
93.8
96.5
9.8
8.9
9.9
10.3
9.4
10.2
MINNESOTA
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Duluth-Superior
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Minneapolis-St. Paul
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
MISSISSIPPI
880.2
881.4
897.3
55.5
55.9
54.1
6.3
6.3
6.0
Jackson
124.5
123.5
125.1
6.3
5.4
6.2
5.0
4.4
5.0.
MISSOURI
2,045.4
2,040.5
2,055.8
148.5
136.0
123.5
7.3
6.7
6.0
Kansas City'
603.7
601.5
604.3
46.5
44.2
40.0
7.7
7.4
6.6
St. Joseph
44.6
42.6
42.1
2.6
2.4
2.2
5.8
5.6
5.2
St. Louis'
1,015.5
1,008.7
1,011.0
87.5
78.4
73.8
8.6
7.8
7.3
Springfield
92.0
88.4
86.9
4.9
4.6
4.0
5.3
5.2
4.6
MONTANA
316.3
317.5
326.8
30.7
28.8
28.6
9.7
9.1
8.8
46.3
46.1
46.8
3.4
3.0
3.1
7.5
6.5
6.7
Billings
Greet Falls
31.5
31.5
32.3
2.9
2.7
2.8
9.2
8.5
8.7
NEBRASKA
680.9
684.3
694.9
46.4
47.3
45.2
6.8
6.9
6.5
Lincoln
96.6
97.3
97.9
4.7
5.7
5.7
4.9
5.8
5.8
Omsha
249.6
250.1
252.4
22.6
23.1
23.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
NEVADA
283.3
286.5
287.8
29.4
29.8
27.6
10.4
10.4
9.6
Las Vegas
153.3
154.4
154.5
17.2
17.0
15.6
1.1.2
11.0
10.1
Reno
77.7
78.8
79.5
6.8
6.9
6.4
8.7
8.8
8.0
NEW HAMPSHIRE
351.0
350.5
353.6
20.4
19.9
19.1
5.8
5.7
5.4
Manchester
60.4
60.2
60.3
3.8
3.7
3.5
6.2
6.1
5.8
NEW JERSEY
3,193.3
3,170.1
3,181.6
356.0
341.7
329.8
11.1
10.8
10.4
Atlantic City
70.4
70.4
71.2
10.5
10.4
9.8
14.9
14.8
13.8
Jersey City,
255.5
252.7
253.7
35.7
33.3
32.3
14.0
13.2
12.7
Long Branch-Asbury Park
193.7
193.1
195.8
19.3
18.2
18.7
10.0
9.4
9.5
Newark
894.3
882.0
885.8
98.4
91.6
90.2
11.0
10.4
10.2
New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville
274.9
276.0
277.4
26.8
27.2
27.0
9.7
9.9
9.7
Paterson-Clifton-Passaic
196.9
196.4
197.9
24.2
23.8
23.2
12.3
12.1
11.7
Trenton
147.2
146.7
147.4
10.9
10.8
10.6
7.4
7.4
7.2
Vineland-Millvilie-Bridgston
53.4
53.1
52.8
7.7
6.9
6.3
14.3
12.9
11.9
NEW MEXICO
423.7
430.5
436.7
30.7
32.6
32.3
7.3
7.6
7.4
Albuquerque
155.0
159.3
162.1
11.4
12.4
12.8
7.4
7.8
7.9
NEW YORK
7,503.9
7,481.5
7,502.8
779.3
767.0
742.5
10.4
10.3
9.9
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
342.4
342.9
343.4
28.0
28.8
27.9
8.2
8.4
8.1
Binghamton¹
124.6
123.8
124.3
11.2
10.7
10.0
9.0
8.7
8.1
Buffalo
561.8
562.0
559.4
70.2
70.0
67.8
12.5
12.5
12.1
Elmire
40.9
40.8
40.8
4.0
4.0
3.7
0.9
9.7
0.0
Nassau-Suffolk
1,098.5
1,099.7
1,111.5
86.1
87.7
86.5
7.8
8.0
7.8
New York
3,554.4
3,526.5
3,533.6
389.0
374.3
361.6
10.9
10.6
10.2
95.4
6.7
6.6
7.0
Poughkeepsie
95.4
95.9
6.9
7.3
6.9
450.9
448.7
449.7
39.6
38.9
37.8
8.8
8.7
8.4
Rochester
275.2
278.2
278.8
27.0
28.3
27.8
9.8
10.2
10.0
Syracuse
Unca-Rome
124.4
124.9
125.0
15.0
15.2
14.7
12.1
12.2
11.8
2,442.3
2,439.6
2,446.0
176.6
167.4
161.1
7.2
6.9
0.6
NORTH CAROLINA
Asheville
74.9
74.4
75.3
5.9
5.3
5.2
7.9
7.1
6.9
Charlotte-Gastonia
303.7
300.6
300.3
23.0
19.4
18.4
7.6
6.5
6.1
Greensboro-Winston-Salen-High Point
378.9
373.6
375.2
27.5
22.8
22.9
7.3
6.1
0.1
Raleigh-Durham
237.3
237.7
238.1
11.9
11.3
11.3
5.0
4.7
4,7
253.9
258.7
269.8
16.6
18.3
18.1
6.5
7.1
6.7
NORTH DAKOTA
Fargo-Moorhead'
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
See footnotes at end of table.
NOTE: All data are provisional. They are subject to revision as new benchmark information
becomes available Data refer to place of residence
Labor force and unemployment by State and selected areas-Continued
(Numbers in thousands)
Unemployment
Labor force
Percent of
Number
State and area
labor force
Jan.
Feb."
Mar.P
Jan.
Feb."
Mar.P
Jan.ʳ
Feb.
Mar.
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
OHIO
4,650.2
4,639.9
4,659.8
414.3
414.9
382.7
8.9
8.9
8.2
Akron
286.4
284.8
284.4
27.7
28.5
26.7
9.7
10.0
9.4
Canton
175.8
174.0
175.3
17.6
17.3
17.2
10.0
10.0
9.8
Cincinnati
595.4
593.1
595.3
52.9
50.8
47.9
8.9
8.6
8.1
Cleveland
877.4
874.5
877.2
68.8
67.2
63.6
7.8
7.7
7.3
Columbus
494.2
493.0
494.2
37.9
38.4
37.0
7.7
7.8
7.5
Dayton
350.7
352.2
351.7
27.5
27.9
25.0
7.8
7.9
7.1
Toledo
334.4
334.1
335.0
29.7
28.9
27.8
8.9
8.6
8.3
Youngstown-Warren
231.7
229.2
232.0
24.5
28.0
23.1
10.6
12.2
9.9
OKLAHOMA
1,157.0
1,158.6
1,165.3
91.7
91.5
89.4
7.9
7.9
7.7
Oklahoma City
354.7
353,3
356.8
28.0
26.4
27.3
7.9
7.5
7.7
Tulsa
270.0
270.2
271.0
19.3
20.1
19.2
7.1
7.5
7.1
OREGON
1,042.1
1,035.7
1,045.1
123.5
115.0
112.2
11.9
11.1
10.7
Eugene-Springfield
110.5
108.9
109.6
15.7
13.3
12.9
14.2
12.2
11.8
Portland
508.8
506.4
511.4
51.9
49.5
48.8
10.2
9.8
9.5
Salem
91.4
90.6
91.3
10.8
9.5
9.1
11.8
10.4
10,0
PENNSYLVANIA
5,033.0
5,026.6
5,043.2
478.9
464.4
446.1
9.5
9.2
8.8
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
296.4
295.0
294.5
29.4
28.3
27.0
9.9
9.6
9.2
Altoona
54.9
54.4
54.6
5.1
4.8
4.4
9.3
8.9
8.1
Erie
119.4
121.2
122.6
13.5
13.9
14.8
11.3
11.4
12.1
Harrisburg
205.1
206.5
206.8
15,0
14.9
12.8
7.3
7.2
6.2
Johnstown
104.6
103.1
103.4
10.4
8.7
7.9
9.9
8.4
7.6
Lancaster
158.8
158.0
160.5
13.5
11.3
10.8
8.5
7.1
6.7
Northeast Pennsylvania
269.9
270.3
270.8
32.2
32.4
30.6
11.9
12.0
11.3
Philadelphia
2,008.7
2,009.2
2,015.7
184.3
180.2
177.1
9.2
9.0
8.8
Pittsburgh
969.8
962.2
963.8
86.5
83,6
78.6
8.9
8.7
8.2
Reading
143.7
144.5
145.4
10.9
10.4
10.8
7.6
7.2
7.4
Williamsport
49.1
48.7
49.5
6.2
5.6
5.7
12.6
11.5
11.5
York
151.3
150.5
152.1
13.8
12.8
12.6
9.1
8.5
8.3
RHODE ISLAND
412.3
410.2
409.2
55.0
51.7
48.3
13.3
12.6
11.8
Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket
415.9
413.3
412.6
54.4
50.5
47.8
13.1
12.2
11.6
SOUTH CAROLINA
1,160.4
1,168.5
1,172.7
86.4
85.8
78.0
7.4
7.3
6.6
Charleston-North Charleston
124.4
125.5
126.1
9.4
9.6
8.3
7.6
7.7
6.6
Columbia
143.1
145.6
145.7
8.9
9.3
8.7
6.2
6.4
6.0
Greenville-Spartanburg
228.9
231.4
231.6
15.4
15.1
13.9
6.7
6.5
6.0
SOUTH DAKOTA
288.2
292.3
299.2
16.0
15.7
15.4
5.6
5.4
5.2
Sioux Falls
49.3
49.3
49.8
2.5
2.5
2.3
5.1
5.1
4.7
TENNESSEE
1,750.7
1,754.8
1,766.1
146.0
145.0
142.2
8.3
8.3
8.1
Chattanooga¹
178.1
178.2
178.2
10.0
9.9
9.3
5.6
5.6
5.2
Knoxville
183.3
183.9
184.8
12.8
12.9
13.4
7.0
7.0
7.3
Memphis'
338.9
341.4
342.8
27.7
27.3
28.7
8.2
8.0
8.4
Nashvilte-Davidson
341.4
333.1
332.7
23.6
24.5
22.9
6.9
7.4
6.9
TEXAS
5,257.7
5,278.5
5,296.4
280.1
283.4
271.5
5.3
5.4
5.1
Amarillo
78.4
78.5
78.4
2.7
2.8
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
Austin
189.5
192.8
193.7
7.9
8.0
7.0
4.2
4.1
3.6
Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange
157.5
158.1
158.9
10.3
9.5
9.3
6.5
6.0
5.8
Corpus Christi
123.0
124.4
124.8
8.3
8.5
8.2
6.8
6.8
6.6
Dallas-Fort Worth
1,171.6
1,171.9
1,173.2
57.6
57.6
53.8
4.9
4.9
4.6
EI Paso
151.4
152.2
152.0
13.5
13.2
13,2
8.9
8.7
8.7
Galveston-Texas City
78.5
79.0
78.8
4.1
3.7
3.6
5.3
4.6
4.6
Houston
1,070.4
1,075.6
1,077.8
51.8
53.9
52.7
4.8
5.0
4.9
Lubbock
88.8
89.4
90.8
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.7
3.6
3.5
San Antonio
373.6
375:5
375.7
26.7
26.8
26.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
Waco
70.5
70.5
70.7
4.5
4.1
3.7
6.3
5.9
5.3
Wichita Falls
56.3
56.4
56.0
2.7
2.7
2.1
4.7
4.7
3.8
UTAH
495.9
499.0
510.8
38.4
36.3
34.5
7.7
7.3
1.8
Salt Lake City-Ogden
330.7
333.7
338.7
23.3
23.3
22.1
7.0
7.0
1.5
VERMONT
200.1
201.6
201.6
21.2
21.1
20.8
10.6
10.4
10,3
See footnotes at end of table
NOTE: All data are provisional. They are subject to revision as new benchmark information
becomes available. Data refer to place of residence.
Labor force and unemployment by State and selected areas-Continued
(Numbers 5 thousands)
Unemployment
Labor force
Percent of
Number
labor force
State and area
Jan. r
Feb.r
Mar.P
Jan. r
Feb.r
Mar.P
Jan. I
Feb.
Mar.P
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
VIRGINIA
2,220.8
2,221.0
2,235.3
138.2
137.3
133.0
6.2
6.2
6.0
Lynchburg
66.7
66.4
67.7
3.9
3.7
3.8
5.8
5.5
5.6
Newport News -Hampton
146.1
145.3
147.6
9.4
9.1
9.2
6.5
6.3
6.3
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Portsmouth
293.2
292.1
296.6
19.1
19.1
20.3
6.5
6.5
6.8
Richmond
290.3
288.7
291.3
11.5
11.8
11.8
4.0
4.1
4.1
Roanoke
106.3
106.5
107.4
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.1
WASHINGTON
1,502.3
1,504.5
1,525.5
162.4
154.9
154.4
10.8
10.3
10.1
Seattle - Everett
660.2
658.9
664.9
66.5
63.4
62.5
10.1
9.6
9.4
Spokane
122.6
123.5
124.7
11.3
12.0
11.4
9.2
9.7
9.2
Tacoma
149.7
150.4
153.7
17.9
17.3
17.9
11.9
11.5
11.7
WEST VIRGINIA
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Charleston
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Huntington-Ashiand¹
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Parkersburg-Marietta
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Wheeling
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
WISCONSIN
2,080.6
2,086.7
2,083.6
159.4
167.2
146.0
7.7
8.0
7.0
Appleton-Oshkosh
134.4
134.1
133.1
10.8
9.7
8.4
8.0
7.2
6.3
Green Bay
81.7
82.1
81.1
6.0
6.3
5.7
7.3
7.6
7.0
Kenosha
63.4
56.1
62.0
5.1
10.0
4.2
8.1
17.7
6.9
La Crosse
39.9
40.9
40.5
3.3
3.2
2.7
8.2
7.7
6.8
Madison
157.8
161.9
161.8
8.2
7.9
7.7
5.2
4.9
4.8
Milwaukee
644.6
646.2
644.8
44.6
46.9
42.3
6.9
7.3
6.6
Racine
84.6
86.3
84.0
6.6
7.9
5.5
7.8
9.1
6.5
WYOMING
170.0
169.7
171.0
8.7
8.6
8.2
5.1
5.1
4.8
a
Includes interstate portion of Area located in adjacent State(s).
becomes available. Data refer to place of residence.
p=preliminary.
T revised.
N.A.=not available.
NOTE: All data are provisional. They are subject to revision as new benchmark information
SOURCE: Cooperating State Employment Security Agency.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Quem
May 25,
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX "RIEDERSDORF
THROUGH:
CHARLES LEPPERT, JR.
CLr.
FROM:
TOM LOEFFLER
T.C.
SUBJECT:
Ways and Means Committee
Requested Rule for HR-10210,
a bill to amend the present
Unemployment Compensation Program
In executive session today, the Ways and Means Committee
agreed upon the following rule request for HR-10210.
The Committee will request a closed rule allowing the following
amendments:
1) an amendment to Section 111 requiring coverage
of agricultural workers of employers with four
or more workers in 20 weeks or who paid $10,000
in quarterly wages (rather than four workers in
20 weeks or $5,000 in quarterly wages as in
HR-10210)
2) an amendment to Section 115 striking provisions
that require coverage of state and local government
employees and employees of non-profit schools.
3) an amendment to Section 211 raising the taxable
wage base to $6,000 (rather than $8,000 as in
HR-10210)
4) an amendment to Title III, adding Section 314,
requiring states to pay a weekly benefit amount
equal to 50% of the claimant's average weekly
wage, up to the state maximum. The state
maximum must be equal to at least 66-2/3% of
the statewide average weekly wage in covered
employment.
- 2 -
5) a duPont amendment to Title IV (study commission)
adding a study of the method by which unemployment
statistics are collected.
The Committee will also request one committal motion.
cc: Pat Rowland
Jim Cannon
Jim Cavanaugh
Paul O'Neill
Alan Kranowitz
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES CANNON
FROM:
BILL DIEFENDERFER
ww
Attached are the total unemployment statistics for the 25 largest labor
market areas in the United States. No figures are available for Chicago
and the Minneapolis-St. Paul area because the State and Federal
governments are at odds as to what the current figures are.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
But Thanks
Pla monthly give we gm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OF
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
LABOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210
STATES
OF
May 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR BILL DIEFENDEFER
FROM:
VAN JOLISSAINT
ug
SUBJECT:
Recent Unemployment Rates:
25 Largest SMSA's
January
February
March
1.
New York
10.9
10.6
10.2
2.
Chicago*
3.
Los Angeles
10.0
10.0
10.0
4.
Philadelphia
9.2
9.0
8.8
5. Detroit
12.2
11.8
11.4
6.
San Francisco
11.5
11.6
11.4
7.
Washington, D.C.
6.0
5.7
5.7
8. Boston
10.3
10.0
9.2
9. Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y.
7.8
8.0
7.8
10. Dallas-Fort Worth
4.9
4.9
4.6
11. St. Louis
8.6
7.8
7.3
12. Pittsburgh
8.9
8.7
8.2
13. Houston
4.8
5.0
4.9
14. Baltimore
8.5
8.0
7.9
15. Newark
11.0
10.4
10.2
16. Cleveland
7.8
7.7
7.3
17. Minneapolis-St. Paul*
18. Atlanta
9.3
8.9
8.2
19. Anaheim-Santa Ana
7.5
7.6
7.3
20. San Diego
12.0
12.4
11.9
21. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
6.9
7.3
6.6
22. Seattle-Everett
10.1
9.6
9.4
23. Cincinnati, Ohio
8.9
8.6
8.1
24. Denver-Boulder
7.4
6.9
7.4
25. Miami
11.7
11.5
11.3
*DATA UNAVAILABLE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
NEW YORK CITY UNEMPLOYMENT
April (seasonally unadjusted)
10.3
New York State--April
9.5
United States--April
7.4
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The attached memorandum prepared by Henry Perritt
on "Current Status uf Unemployment Insurance (UI)
Legislation" is distributed for your information.
Attachment
FORDS & LIURARY GERALD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
5/31/76
THE DEPUTY UNDER SECRE ARY OF LABOR
LABOR
WASHINGTON
STATES
DIAMERICA
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EPB EXECUTIV OMMITTEE
Div
FROM:
HENRY H. PERRITT, JR.
DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
ECONOMIC POLICY REVIEW
HHL
Subject:
Current Status of Unemployment
you
Insurance (UI) Legislation
Efforts to enact legislation (H.R. 10210) to reform
the unemployment insurance system have been set back Y the
action in the House on Monday, May 17. The financial
con-
dition of the UI system at this time makes it imperati
that some action be taken to try and salvage at least
financing portion of the bill. This memorandum provides you
with a status report on prospects for UI reform.
Although the Administration preferred some provisions
of its own bill, H.R. 8614 rather than the Committee bill,
the Ways and Means Committee was advised that in light of
expected approval of a closed rule, the Administration
would have no objection to passage of H.R. 10210 in the
House. It was recognized within the Administration that
efforts would be made to amend certain provisions when it
came to the Senate. Principal objections were to the
greatly expanded coverage of public employees in H.R.
10210, and the omission of a Federal benefit standard.
With the defeat of the closed rule on the House
floor on May 17 and the emergence of opposition on a
number of key provisions in the bill, including those
on financing, it may be necessary to rethink some of
the specifics of the Administration position on the bill
and be flexible enough to ensure passage at least of
adequate financial provisions.
Background
Three overall objectives have guided unemployment
insurance legislative efforts since mid-1974. They were
first expressed in testimony by John Dunlop on April 22
and subsequently in testimony on July 15, 1975.
- 2 -
(1) Immediate enactment (and orderly winding down
when appropriate) of temporary, emergency programs
to cope quickly with the unprecedented, heavy
volume of claims induced by the 1974-1975 recession;
(2) Reasonably prompt adoption of a limited
number of needed permanent improvements in the
basic UI program;
(3) Establishment of a high-level study commission
to consider and make recommendations on other
major UI issues such as benefit adequacy, relation-
ship of UI to other income maintenance qualifying
requirements, appropriate duration of benefits.
The first objective was accomplished, in part, by
enactment of the Federal Supplemental Benefit Program
(P.L. 93-572), the Special Unemployment Assistance Program
(P.L. 93-567) and subsequent amendments in the Spring of
1975, (P.L. 94-45). These programs were designed, respec-
tively, to extend the duration of benefits already available
to claimants and to provide benefits to other unemployed
individuals who had work experience but were not covered
under regular UI programs.
The second and third set of objectives were embodied
in the Administration's bill H.R. 8614. The Administra-
tion position was presented in July 15th testimony before
the Subcommittee on Unemployment Compensation supporting
H.R. 8614, which was introduced by Congressman Steiger.
A clean bill, H.R. 10210, was introduced on October 20,
1975 on a bipartisan basis by Congressmen Corman and
Steiger and other UI Subcommittee members.
H.R. 10210's three major provisions involve:
(1) extension of coverage to over 9.4 million of 12
million jobs not now covered by regular unemployment
insurance; (2) increase in taxable wage base from $4,200
to $8,000 and temporary increase in net Federal tax
rate from 0.5% to 0.7%; (3) establishment of a National
Study Commission on Unemployment Insurance.
It was approved by the Subcommittee on October 20 and
referred to the full Ways and Means Committee, which reported
it on December 16, 1975, with a recommendation for a closed
rule. Because of provisions of the Congressional Budget
Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, floor action on
the bill was delayed until Monday, May 17.
- 3 -
Current Legislative Situation
On Monday, May 17, the House of Representatives
rejected, by a vote of 125 Yeas, 219 Nays, JH. Res. 1183, a
closed rule providing for 3 hours of general debate on the
bill H.R. 10210, Unemployment Compensation Amendments of
1975. The closed rule would have provided for only one
motion to recommit, and would have prohibited a motion to
recommit with instructions. The Democratic vote was evenly
split at 116-116; the Republican vote was 9 Yeas, 103 Nays,
88 not voting.
Three major areas of concern appear to lay behind the vote
to reject the rule:
(1) The growing opposition of members of the House
toward closed rules,
(2) Opposition to mandatory coverage of State and
local governmental employees, and
(3) Opposition to the proposed increase in the
taxable wage base from $4,200 per year to $8,000
per year for purposes of the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act.
During the debate it was evident that, had the rule
permitted and had the rule been adopted, a motion would have
been offered to recommit the bill with instructions to lower
the taxable wage base to $6,000, to lower the net Federal
tax rate, and to continue to permit State and local govern-
ments to elect to cover their workers rather than make such
coverage mandatory.
This opposition raises the possibility of no action
on UI reform during this session of Congress unless the
supporters of such reform can come up with a strategy that
will permit passage of the critical financing reform provi-
sions of H.R. 10210.
The Department of Labor is working with key committee
members and staff and with the White House legislative staff
to develop a strategy that will meet this objective. An
important element of such a strategy would be to keep the
financing provisions intact or at least to avoid their being
so weakened as to be inadequate. At the same time it may be
necessary to modify our position with respect to other
provisions of the bill.
- 4 -
Without Congressional action on permanent UI reform
this year, the following results are likely:
(1) The earliest possible effective date for changes
in state financing and coverage legislation would
be pushed back to January 1, 1979, assuming
Federal legislation was passed in 1977.
(2) The deficit funding of the UI system from general
revenue, currently estimated to be $16.8 billion
by the end of FY 1977, will increase to $19.7
billion by the end of FY 1978. Employment Service
and Unemployment Insurance programs will either have
to be cut back or $200 million in general revenue
provided in FY 1978 and $300 million in FY 1979.
(3) Pressure will increase to extend beyond March 1977
the life of the general revenue-financed temporary
(SUA) coverage of State and local government, farm
and domestic employees.
(4) There will be increasing pressure from employer
groups to:
(a) forgive or postpone repayment of out-
standing loans to depleted State funds
(b) convert financing of Federal Supplemental
Benefits from trust fund to general revenue
funding.
I have attached, for your information, some further
background on the provisions of H.R. 10210 (TAB A) and a
paper outlining the key features of the UI system (TAB B).
I will keep the Board posted regarding developments
in this area.
TAB A
Provisions of H.R. 10210
Under the bill, most (7.7 million) of the workers
to whom UI protection would be extended are
local government employees. (The Administra-
tion bill would have extended coverage only
to public school teachers and workers in
public hospitals.) In addition, the bill
would also extend coverage to 710,000 agricul-
tural workers (those employed on farms having
at least four employees or a quarterly
payroll of at least $5,000), about 400,000
domestic workers (whose employers pay quarterly
wages of $600 or more for such services), and
about 600,000 jobs in State government.
Most importantly, the bill also proposes changes
in the wage base (from $4,200 to $8,000) and tax
rate (from 0.5% to 0.7%) since 22 of the States'
unemployment funds are now depleted. The Federal
Unemployment Account (from which States with
depleted funds borrow money) and the Extended
Unemployment Compensation Account (which finances
the Federal share of the extended benefits program)
are both depleted and borrowing from Federal
general revenues.
--- These changes in financing provisions are
expected to raise an additional $6.3 billion
($1.6 billion in Federal revenues and $4.7
billion in State revenues) in Fiscal Year
1978. These additional revenues will produce
a positive balance in the Federal unemployment
compensation trust funds and will restore
most States unemployment compensation trust
funds to solvent positions by 1981.
--- Absent these changes, the Federal Unemployment
Compensation trust funds will have a deficit
of $6.2 billion in 1978, increasing to $8.2
billion in 1982 and $9.6 billion in 1984.
- 2 -
In addition to recommending creation of a National
Study Commission, additional provisions of H.R.
10210 include: admission of the Virgin Islands
into the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance
System; State (instead of Federal) financing of
administrative and extended benefit costs attribu-
table to employment in State and local governments
(there has been vocal opposition to this provision
on the part of state and local governments and their
organizations); changes in the method of allocating
the costs of benefits paid Federal employees and
ex-servicemen; modification of appellate rights of
Federal employees; change in procedure for loan
fund advances to States; reimbursement to States
for unemployment insurance paid to CETA Public
Service Employees; modification of trigger provi-
sions in the extended benefits program; prohibition
of disqualifications for benefits solely on the
basis of pregnancy.
H.R. 10210 also provides for a transition without
a gap from SUA to regular UI for workers that
would be newly covered under the proposal, thus, it
provides for Federal reimbursement of benefits paid
after the effective date of the Act (the Administra-
tion bill did not contain such a provision) and
which are based on wages earned in jobs not covered
prior to that date. Federal reimbursement, however,
would be contingent upon a State's election to pay
benefits under these circumstances.
TAB B
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Unemployment insurance benefits are paid to eligible
individuals with previous work force attachment in order to
prevent the severe financial hardships caused by periods of
unemployment. Special programs have been enacted extend-
ing the number of weeks for which individuals may receive
benefits during periods of high unemployment. Currently,
there are four different kinds of unemployment insurance
programs:
1. The regular Unemployment Insurance program provides
from 8 to a maximum of 26 weeks of benefits, depending on the
State and on the earnings and employment history of the indi-
vidual. Benefits under this program are funded by the States.
2. The Federal-State Extended Benefit (EB) program was
provided for in the Employment Security Amendments of 1970,
as amended. Under this program, when the total insured*
unemployment rate is over 4.5%, beneficiaries in all States
are eligible to receive additional benefits for one-half of the
period for which they are eligible under the regular program;
i.e., an increase ranging from 4 to a maximum of 13 weeks of
benefits. Thus, a beneficiary could receive up to 39 weeks of
unemployment insurance benefits under a combination of regular
and extended benefit programs. Benefits under this program are
funded equally by the States and by the Federal Government.
*The insured unemployment rate (IUR) differs from the more
commonly discussed total unemployment rate in that:
(a) The insured unemployment rate measures the ratio of
individuals claiming benefit rights to a lagged measure of
covered employment, and is an actual count based on adminis-
trative data. It generally refers only to regular UI claimants
and does not include recipients of EB, FSB or SUA.
(b) The total unemployment rate is compiled by the BLS
from sample survey data and represents the ratio of the total
number of unemployed to the civilian labor force.
- 2 -
3. The Federal Supplemental Benefit program (FSB)
was enacted on December 31, 1974, as amended. Under this
program, individuals were eligible to receive an additional
increment of benefits equal to one-half of the period for
which they were eligible under the regular program; i.e.,
an increase ranging from 4 to a maximum of 13 weeks of bene-
fits. This meant that under all programs, an individual could
receive from 16 to a maximum of 52 weeks of benefits. The Tax
Reduction Act of 1975 contained a provision that, as of April 1,
1975 increased total benefits available to a range of 20 to
a maximum of 65 weeks during the period April 1 through June 30,
1975.
On June 30, 1975, legislation was enacted which pro-
vided that, through March 1, 1977, under the FSB program,
beneficiaries in States which had an insured unemployment
rate of over 6% were eligible to receive benefits equal to 100
percent of their eligibility under the regular program; i.e.,
from 8 to 26 weeks of additional benefits for a total potential
maximum of 65 weeks. Since January 1, 1976, States with an
insured unemployment rate below 6% but more than 5% can pay
benefits for up to 50% of the period for regular unemployment
benefits to a maximum of 13 weeks. In States where the insured
unemployment rate is less than 5% FSB benefits trigger off
completely.
4. The Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act
of 1974 established Special Unemployment Assistance (SUA), a
temporary two-year program of federally supported unemployment
assistance for workers who are not eligible for unemployment
benefits under any other law. The major groups affected are
state and local government employees, farm workers, and
domestic workers.
The SUA program allows payments to this group of unem-
ployed workers if the seasonally adjusted total insured unem-
ployment rate averaged 6 or more percent nationally. Such
workers are eligible for assistance payments if their employ-
ment in the preceding 52 weeks, regardless of whether it is
covered, satisfies the States' UI laws qualifying requirements.
Potential duration is the duration provided by State law for
regular programs, with a maximum of 26 weeks. P.L. 94-45,
enacted June 30, 1975, increased SUA duration from 100 percent
to 150 percent of regular unemployment insurance entitlement,
subject to a maximum of 39 weeks. SUA claimants are not eligible
for EB or FSB. SUA is also a temporary program and expires March
31, 1977, along with FSB.
- 3 -
The following chart summarizes important characteristics of the current system of
unemployment compensation.
Regular State
Extended Benefits
Federal Supplemental
Programs
Program (EB)
Benefits Program
(FSB)
State Trust Funds
50% State Trust Funds
Repayable Advances
from Earmarked
from Earmarked Employer
from Federal General
Employer Taxes
Taxes
Revenue Funds
50% Federal Trust Funds
from Earmarked Employer
Taxes
Weeks 0
26
39
52
65
Trigger: None
4.5% (National) or
5% (State)
6% (State)
4.0% (State)
Special Unemployment Assistance Program (SUA)
100 Percent Federal General Revenue Funds
Weeks 0
26
39
Trigger
6% (National) or
6.5% (local)
- 4 -
Table 1 in Tab C shows national totals for exhaus-
tions from all programs during 1973, 1974 and 1975, and
estimates exhaustions for 1976. Precise estimates on
exhaustions for the remainder of the year are not possible
because of a number of uncertainties such as the course
of layoffs and other job loss, individuals voluntarily re-
turning to work, and the varied timing among States of
triggering off as insured unemployment rates change in
individual States.
In all cases, FSB and EB exhaustees will add up to a
total that is less than or equal to exhaustees under regular
state programs, since these programs become available only
after exhaustion of regular benefits. The difference is
made up primarily of those who return to work or otherwise
cease claiming benefits without exhausting.
Exhaustees may be either employed, unemployed or
out of the labor force following exhaustion. The pattern
of FSB exhaustions represents a greater proportion of
EB exhaustees than did the exhaustion of EB relative to that
of regular state benefits. This probably represents the
greater difficulty encountered in finding work, the longer
one is unemployed, i.e., the hardcore unemployed. The drop
in the proportion of FSB to EB exhaustees projected for the
LIGRARY
remainder of 1976 reflects the fact that fewer and fewer
states will be triggered into FSB programs as the year goes
on and the unemployment rate improves.
SUA is shown separately since it operates completely
apart from the other programs. Exhaustions here are expected
to reach their peak during the first half of this year but are
expected to decline somewhat in the second half of the year as
economic conditions improve, fewer people enter the program and
others return to work prior to exhaustion of full benefits.
Tables 2-5 break down estimated exhaustions for each
State in each of the four UI programs over the next 6 months.
These data were obtained from each of the States and compiled
by the Unemployment Insurance Service. They correspond to the
national totals presented by quarter in Table 1. These
estimates were made under the assumption of an average total
national rate of 7.5% for 1976. Most States appear to follow
the national pattern, with the largest number of exhaustions
occurring in the first quarter. Probably, the most significant
set of data are those describing expected FSB exhaustions, for
these individuals have no further recourse to UI benefits. Since
FSB exhaustions follow exhaustions from regular and EB programs,
it is interesting to inspect exhaustion trends in those programs
- 5 -
as well. Regular benefits exhaustions are expected to
peak in March or April, extended benefits exhaustions
are estimated to peak in February and March, and perhaps,
most significantly, FSB exhaustions, the last program
of available benefits will be peaking in the first
quarter, with an additional blip upward in July, re-
flecting the high first quarter exhaustions in regular
and extended benefits, particularly the latter.
FORD LIBRARY