Newsweek Economics

THE EDITORS of Newsweek are mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more.

That, at least, seemed to describe the mood of the magazine's October 18 issue. Before that, Newsweek had taken an editorial position only three times in its history on an issue facing the nation on race, on Vietnam, and on energy. Presented against the backdrop of the Reagan Administration's announcement that the jobless rate in America had reached a post-depression record 10.1 percent, last week's proposed agenda for easing unemployment marked the fourth. The results, however, are disappointing. Rather than offering a complete program for getting America back to work. Newsweek gives a conglomeration of uncoordinated proposals--mostly unimaginative, mostly bad--pulled from an economist's grab-bag that would create more problems than they solve. The solution provides little good advice on how to loosen the grip of unemployment.

Like most observers, Newsweek begins its analysis of U.S. economic woes by focusing on interest rates and federal spending. Interest rates are "strangling recovery from the current recession," and the solution is to "close the gaping deficits projected for coming years." According to this view, government borrowing competes with the private sector for a limited amount of money, making credit more expensive for everyone. But this places far too much blame for high interest rates on budget deficits. The real problem is not the size of the government's share, but the limited size of the entire money supply. Instead of swallowing the harsh fiscal pill prescribed by Newsweek, which includes reform of governmental pensions. Medicare, and social security along with tax increases--interest rates can be reduced by easing restrictions on the money supply--a path the Federal Reserve Board is now following.

Newsweek's call for fiscal austerity proves particularly fruitless because of the tremendous spending inherent in other parts of the program, particularly the establishment of millions of public-works jobs through the recreation of the Works Progress Administration. Even though deficits in and of themselves pose no great hazard to economic well-being, a policy of fiscal inconsistency does. A government that runs up huge debts while preaching the virtues of budgetary prudence confuses the public and clouds the private sector's ability to make sound decisions. That may be the only clear lesson of the Reagan Administration's experiment with supply-side economics.

At times, the magazine's agenda for getting America working again appears remarkably oblivious of important objections to its proposals--objections that emasculate the program's effectiveness. When suggesting a lowered minimum wage for workers under 20 years old, for example, Newsweek overlooks existing exceptions to the minimum wage law that permit many restaurants and fast found chains, typically major employers of youth, to pay "sub-minimum" wages for high school students. Instead of the prevailing $3.35 an hour, for many teenagers minimum wages brings $2.86 an hour. Any substantial reduction in the guaranteed wage would lead many teenagers to decide that at such paltry pay scales, work just is not worth the effort

THE NEWSWEEK VISION seems equally myopic in discussing foreign trade. Though careful not to endorse trade restrictions Newsweek does recommend governmental policies designed to encourage U.S. exports. But since the unwritten rule of international trade seems to be that "Any advantage you try to impose, we impose more of," such policies would probably fail to achieve any lasting improvement in the U.S. trade balance, would not create jobs, and would risk creating an international environment conducive to projectionist paranoia.

Newsweek's policy of immigration restrictions that crack down on illegal aliens would also do very little to decrease unemployment. Illegal aliens and migrants almost always work at jobs that American citizens are unwilling to take. This fall, for example, the state of Vermont contacted unemployed residents and encouraged them to work as apple-pickers--jobs traditionally filled by migrant workers from the Dominican Republic. Responses were almost uniformly negative. As one man put it. "There's no way I'm gonna work for under $8 an hour."

Some aspects of Newsweek's agenda show little sensitivity to how the proposals will affect workers personally. The employee whose salary decreases as a result of a minimum wage reduction, for instance, would suffer an incalculable loss of self-esteem, knowing his employer measures his worth in terms of the legally allowable minimum. Imagine, too, the feelings of those employed in the Works Progress Administration who, under the Newsweek plan, would work to repair the American infrastructure of highways, bridges, sewers, ports and dams that support the nation's commerce. Presumably by threatening to deny unemployment benefits, the government would coerce the jobless into performing what the laborers would likely perceive as make-work. The entire scene seems almost like a tremendous civilian chain gang. Like the members of the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps in Vonnegut's Player Piano, such workers would soon begin to think of themselves as "Reeks and Wrecks."

Not everything in the agenda is without merit, however In particular, the Newsweek editorial strongly encourages, both at the governmental and private levels, education for high technology fields and extensive job training for many different vocations. As our modes of production grow increasingly automated, the need for theorists, engineers, and operators becomes much more pressing. Such investment in human skills--"human capital"--would help workers enormously as they enter a world requiring advanced technical skills.

DESPITE THIS IMPORTANT FOCUS on job training and education, however, Newsweek's program for getting America back to work does not, in general, give us a very helpful guide, much less a solution, to the unemployment problem. Fundamental questions about the trade-off imposed by labor unions between higher wages and extra jobs, or relations between firms and their employees are not discussed. Because Newsweek so rarely takes an editorial position, the agenda does draw widespread public attention to the plight of the jobless. But it does little more than that.