(The press release is as follows:)

PRESS RELEASE FOR STATEMENT BY HERMAN P. MILLER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Negro still ranks among the poorest of the poor in the United States and that his economic status relative to whites has not improved for nearly 20 years. Many of the figures collected in the census attest to these facts. The lowly position of the Negro has been documented so many times and in so many ways that presenting the evidence seems like proving the obvious. Yet, what is obvious to some may not be apparent to others. Facts form the only sound basis for discussion and action which may help redress the grievances about which the Negro has complained bitterly and suffered patiently for many years.

1. The relative position of the Negro has not improved

There is a general impression that the relative economic position of the Negro particularly with respect to employment opportunities-has improved in recent years. There has been improvement, but it has been largely due to the movement of the Negro from the rural South to the urban industrial areas rather than to any major change in job opportunities. The occupational skills of both whites and Negroes have been upgraded as the American economy has moved away from agriculture and become more complex and industrialized. As a result, Negroes who were once highly concentrated in sharecropping and farm labor have now moved up to unskilled and semiskilled factory jobs; some have even moved into white-collar employment. But, there has been a parallel upgrading of jobs held by whites. The real question is whether the relative upward movement has been faster for nonwhites than for whites. Statistical tests that have been applied to the data collected in the past three censuses show that this is not the case. Although the occupational status of nonwhites relative to whites has improved for the country as a whole, in most States the nonwhite male now has about the same occupational distribution relative to the whites that he had in 1940 and 1950.

During World War II the income gap between whites and nonwhites did narrow. In the past decade, however, there has been no change in income differentials between the two groups. In view of the stability of the earnings gap during the postwar period, the reduction during the war years cannot be viewed as part of a continuing process, but rather as a phenomenon closely related to war-induced shortages of unskilled labor and Government regulations such as those of the War Labor Board designed generally to raise the incomes of lower paid workers.

2. Nonwhites concentrated in low-paid jobs

Even when nonwhite men are educated and are employed in a trade or profession, their earnings are far below those of whites with the same number of years of schooling and doing the same kinds of work. This is one cause of the low economic status of nonwhites. A more important cause is their concentration in low-paid occupations.

A nonwhite man who has not gone beyond the eighth grade has very little chance of being anything more than a laborer, a porter, or a factory hand. Nearly 8 out of every 10 nonwhite men with only 8 grades of schooling worked as laborers, service workers, or operatives at the time of the last census. Among whites with the same amount of education only 5 out of 10 worked at these low-paid jobs.

The nonwhite high school graduate stands a somewhat better chance of getting a well-paid job; but even his chances are not very good. About 6 out of every 10 nonwhite high school graduates were laborers, service workers, or operatives as compared with only 3 out of 10 whites with the same amount of schooling.

Nonwhite college graduates seem to be able to find professional employment in relatively large numbers. About three out of every four were professional or managerial workers-nearly the same proportion as white college graduates. But, there is one big difference. Nonwhites were concentrated in the lower paid professions. One-third were schoolteachers as compared with only onesixth of the whites. Moreover, earnings of nonwhites in the low-paid professions were considerably below those of whites. Relatively few nonwhites are in the higher paid professions. About 20 percent of the white male college

graduates in professional employment were engineers as compared with only 8 percent of the nonwhites; 14 percent of the whites were lawyers or accountants, but only 6 percent of the nonwhites. There were proportionately as many nonwhite doctors as whites, but the average earnings of the nonwhites were only half that received by the whites.

Nonwhite men earn less than whites with the same number of years of schooling because they are employed in lower paid jobs, and they are paid less even when they do the same kind of work. The combined impact of these two factors is shown in the table below which presents figures on the lifetime earnings of white and nonwhite men by years of school completed. This table shows that the relative earnings gap between whites and nonwhites increases with educational attainment. The lifetime earnings of nonwhite elementary school graduates is about 64 percent of the white total. Among college graduates nonwhites have only 47 percent of the white total. The fact of the matter is that the average nonwhite with 4 years of college can expect to earn less over a lifetime than the white who did not go beyond the eighth grade.

3. Education pays-but the returns are far less for nonwhites

(a) It pays to go to school—even for a bricklayer.-Much of the money that will be spent under the new manpower program will be devoted to the training of mechanics, toolmakers, clerical workers, service workers, and other occupations that do not require college-level courses. Does schooling pay off if a man is going to be a bricklayer, a carpenter, or a busdriver? The census data provide clear and unambiguous answers. In every occupation for which data are shown high school graduates earn more than men who quit school after the eighth grade. In most occupations the difference is between $500 and $1,000 a year. Over a lifetime, these differences amount to about $25,000 to $30,000 in most occupations.

Why the difference? There are many reasons. High school graduates have higher IQ's. This is due partly to their greater education. It may also reflect greater native intelligence and aptitude to learn. But, there are other reasons. Employers give preference to high school graduates. With a diploma a man can drive a bus for a transcontinental busline; without it, he is lucky to get a job with a local transit company which pays much lower wages. The carpenter who is a high school graduate gets a regular job with a big construction firm. He works regularly, good weather and bad, because there is plenty of work to do. The uneducated carpenter works by the day. He gets a job, finishes it, and goes down to the union hall to get another. Whenever work is slack he is the first to go.

Unions also prefer high school graduates. Very often the diploma is required to qualify for apprentice training.

The reasons are varied, but the facts are clear. Education pays off.

(b) Gains are much less for nonwhites.-The figures cited above are for whites and nonwhites combined. An examination of the figures separately for the two racial groups shows that education pays off for each, but the returns are far greater for whites. In most occupations for which figures are available, nonwhite men earned about three-fourths as much as whites with the same amount

of schooling. In nearly every occupation nonwhite high school graduates earned less than whites who never went beyond the eighth grade. The reasons for these differences undoubtedly vary according to the occupation.

4. Evidence of discrimination

The available evidence supports the belief that much of the gap between the earnings of whites and nonwhites is due to factors other than differences in training or ability. But the figures are far from conclusive in this respect. The meaning of a year of school completed can be quite different for whites and nonwhites. Many nonwhite children receive schooling of poorer quality. As a result, nonwhites who have completed the same number of years of school as whites will not be as well educated, on the average. Other factors-cultural, social, and economic conditions-also affect the real education a student absorbs, even in a good school. And finally, performance on the job may have little to do with training or ability. Work habits and motivation may be just as closely related to earnings as education and training.

Statistics that take all of these factors into account have yet to be devised. But figures from the 1960 census permit a closer examination of the problem than has heretofore been possible. Census data are available showing the expected lifetime earnings of white and nonwhite men with less than 8 years of elementary school for three occupations-carpenters, truckdrivers, and semiskilled factory workers. Since all of these men have very little schooling, it cannot be said that the whites are better educated than the nonwhites. Indeed, the low level of education for the entire group makes it likely that the great majority of these men, white and nonwhite alike, are below average in their ability to absorb formal education. These figures show that despite the similarity of the occupations and schooling, sharp differences persist between the earnings of whites and nonwhites. In each of the three occupations, the earnings of nonwhites in the South averaged only about two-thirds that of the whites. In the North and West the differences were somewhat narrower; but even here nonwhite carpenters and truckdrivers averaged only about three-fourths of the white total.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. It has been a pleasure to have you with us; it has been a stimulating hour.

The subcommitee will stand in recess until 9:15 on Friday morning. (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 9:15 a.m., Friday, August 2, 1963.)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Clark (presiding), Burdick, and Javits.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Edward D. Friedman, counsel, and Dr. Garth L. Mangum, research director of the subcommittee; Michael Bernstein, minority counsel; Raymond D. Hurley, John Stringer, and Robert Locke, associate minority counsels.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session.

We are happy to have the Hon. W. Willard Wirtz back before the subcommittee. I think, Mr. Wirtz, largely in your capacity as Vice Chairman of the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, is that the correct title?

Mr. WIRTZ. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. We should note for the record that the Vice President is the Chairman of the Committee, I know of no instance where the Vice President of the United States has appeared before a congressional committee and we are very happy, indeed, to have the Vice Chairman who happens also to be the Secretary of Labor before us today.

Mr. Wirtz, will you please proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, VICE CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES DONAHUE, SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; N. THOMPSON POWERS, DEPUTY SOLICITOR; AND ROBERT NAGLE, ASSISTANT TO THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY

Mr. WIRTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. There are with me today Mr. Charles Donahue, Solicitor of the Department of Labor; N. Thompson Powers, who is the Deputy Solicitor; and Robert Nagle who is assistant to the Executive Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

Senator CLARK. We are glad to have you gentlemen.

Mr. WIRTZ. I have a comparatively short statement, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to either read it or file it for the record.

Senator CLARK. I suggest we follow our usual practice to have it put in the record as it has been submitted and you make such comments on it as you see fit.

(The prepared statement of Hon. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR

I am grateful, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for your affording me this renewed opportunity to express to you the deep conviction that the principle of equality of employment opportunity, of fairness of employment practices, should now be written into the laws of this Nation.

Mr. Justice Holmes said once, of law, that it "embodies beliefs that have triumphed in the battle of ideas and then have translated themselves into action,” and that the time for law comes when "the notion destined to prevail" has become clearly established.

This is that time in the area of employment practices.

I don't believe that much prejudice about employing or not employing people because they are of one race or creed or ethnic grouping or another remains in the hearts or minds of very many people in America. There is a clear consensus of our national conscience. If we could all start today from scratch, the vast majority of Americans would say--and mean it-the only test I will apply in my employment practices is whether this man or woman can do the job. There is, though, more to it than this.

There are some, even if they are comparatively few in number, who hold a different view. It is the function of law, where there are other people and public interests involved-order, peace, equality-to enforce the common decision.

Discrimination had become, furthermore, institutionalized-so that it obtains today in some organizations and practices and areas as the product of inertia, preserved by forms and habits which can be best broken from outside.

If we had full employment today we would come a good deal closer than we do to having fairemployment. It is relevant to suggest that the most basic fair employment proposal before the Congress today is the proposal for change in the tax system--because it will mean more jobs; and when there are more jobs there will be fairer distribution of them. This situation makes such laws, at the same time, more necessary.

You have asked that I advise you specifically of whatever is relevant to your present consideration in the record of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, of which I am Vice Chairman.

There is a very considerable relevance for Executive Order 10925, by which President Kennedy established this Committee on March 6, 1961, is in reality a fair employment practices order covering employment by the Federal Government and by those doing business with the Government.

The teaching of these past 29 months of administration of this order is clear.

The largest lesson is, that under strong and insistent leadership-supplied largely in the case of the Committee by its Chairman, Vice President Johnsonvery real gains can be made. The impression that little accomplishment can be expected from such programs is belied by the Committee record.

The annual census of employment in the Federal Government shows, for example, that in the period June 1961 to June 1962 the number of Negroes employed by the Federal Government increased by more than 10,000 (out of a total increase in Federal employment of 62,633). The 1963 figures will be available very shortly.

The

Over half of this 1961 to 1962 increase took place in the middle grades (jobs paying from $4,500 to $10,000 annually), an increase of almost 20 percent, over three times the rate of overall increase in employment in those grades. number of Negroes at or above GS-12 increased from 1,037 to 1,406. While this is still a low figure, the rate of increase-over 35 percent in 1 year-is at least promising.