In reality, the Congress and society continue to largely ignore the social aspects and the social costs of lack of income, 39 years later!
Below is the introduction to the Joint Committee’s hearings of Thursday, February 26, 1976] The results of the Joint Committee were published on January 1976 and they came up with short title:
January 1976 Economic Report of The President
BROADEN THE OWNERSHIP OF NEW CAPITAL
. . . any questions?
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081236997;view=1up;seq=5
Thursday, February 26, 1975
Chairman Humphrey.
This Joint Economic Committee hearing is one of the many that we have had relating to the annual report. It is one of an annual series to evaluate the President’s economic report.
Today, we are focusing on the social cost of unemployment.
We have had a great deal of discussion on the direct economic costs: The loss of income, the direct economic costs, the loss of production, the loss of revenue.
Congress has devoted much of its debate and committee time to our economy – searching for ways to rapidly achieve full employment and maintain price stability.
We’ve talked about the billions of dollars in lost income due to our recession.
We’ve talked about the $15 billion or more that the Federal Government is paying in higher welfare and unemployment compensation due to the recession.
We’ve talked about the record Federal budget deficit – a deficit due to the combination of higher welfare outlays and a $45 billion shortfall in tax revenues – revenues paid in normal times by plants and workers now idle and unemployed.
We’ve talked about the need for meaningful temporary public works and employment programs to more rapidly spur our recovery.
We’ve talked about the fear, the apprehension, the lack of confidence in present economic policies which many of us believe is holding back economic recovery.
We’ve talked about predictions from administration spokesmen that these same economic policies will leave at least 7 million persons unemployed next Christmas.
But there is a lot more we haven’t talked about enough: The fact revealed in a Roper poll last year, that 38 percent of all families are now affected one way or another by unemployment is extremely important.
We haven’t talked about the very strong relation between soaring imprisonments – prison population – and unemployment. Or, about the frustration and anger – the stress – which unemployment imposes on workers and their families.
We haven’t talked about the relationship – demonstrated by such eminent researchers as Mr. Brenner, at John Hopkins University – between unemployment and mental health disease.
Nor of the terrible, hidden link between the stresses of unemployment and heart disease, stroke, and even kidney disease.
We rarely talk about an entire generation of young adults now who have been denied the opportunity of a full-time steady job. They can scarcely be expected to accept our basic work ethic – when they can’t even find work. Many of them, never having had the chance to experience work.
And we rarely talk about the aggressive behavior – the family squabbles which result in maiming or murder – because of stress caused by unemployment.
In reality, the Congress and society have largely ignored the social aspects the social costs of unemployment.
The Joint Economic Committee is trying to rectify this shortcoming. It has launched a broad investigation of the relationship between social stress due to unemployment and physical and mental illness, and aggressive behavior. There are three studies underway now with assistance from the Library of Congress.
These studies have one major purpose: To assist our national economic policymakers on Capitol Hill and the White House in assessing the full impact and effect of decisions raising or lowering unemployment.
