Job Losses
Robert Jones’ column “Fouling the Air With Numbers” (Part A, Feb. 8) was salty and impressive.
However, I apparently did not explain clearly the methodology used. The 50% number Jones quoted so freely referred to the maximum loss of jobs in industry sub-segments that will have powerful economic incentives to depart. It overstates my research findings for some sectors.
The main point is this: Hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs and then wait (pump gas or go on relief) until someone invents the new technology needed. The pain of a two- or three-year period of joblessness can be excruciating--and for the less skilled people may become permanent. New jobs in 1994 for new college grads cannot cover the pain of the blue-collar workers laid off in 1990.
To elaborate, Jones omitted my comments about Southern California growth prospects being great enough to create jobs for many newcomers--particularly highly skilled technicians and scientists--but not for the woodworkers, plasterers, furniture finishers and the like who would be losing their jobs along with the market for their skills.
There are a lot more humane considerations in the numbers than we have seen in print yet.
JOSEPH E. HARING, Ph.D.
Director
Pasadena Research Institute
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
