
          The Climate for Workers: Where Does the South Stand?
          By Johnson, KennyKenny Johnson and Scurlock, MarilynMarilyn Scurlock
          Vol. 8, No. 4, 1986, pp. 3-15
          
          
            We believe the true test of economic conditions is how working
people--the vast majority of citizens--fare in these times of economic
change. This report examines how the economic climates in the states
affect most workers.
            Although it experienced extraordinary job growth during the past
ten years, the Southeast remains the least favorable region of the
nation when considered from the perspective of working people and
their families. More than in any other region, workers in the twelve
states of the Southeast fail to enjoy the full fruits of their
labors.
            During a major restructuring away from traditional manufacturing
jobs (furniture, textiles, apparel) and toward service jobs
(especially business and health services), manufacturing growth where
it does occur is generally in machinery, electronic equipment, and
related fields. Yet in the Southeast, state governments and chambers
of commerce have clung to the refrain of cheap land and cheap labor
that produced the region's heavy dependence on-low wage, traditional
manufacturing jobs and the largest proportion of working poor in the
country. Even the new service jobs in the region have wages at the low
end of the pay scale. In the final analysis it must be realized that
recent and phenomenal job growth in the Southeast has occurred in
large part at the bottom end of the wage scale, and has not improved
significantly the conditions and prospects for the wage earners of the
region. As the Southeast's economy follows the national trend of fewer
manufacturing and more service sector jobs, the region's employed and
unemployed workers are unlikely to see much change in their personal
conditions.
            Southern_states fill the bottom rungs of nearly all of the more
than two dozen indicators considered in this study of the nation's
labor climate. This situation is graphically depicted in the map on
the next page. The top five states, meanwhile, are Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Minnesota, California, and New_York.1 The national ranking for each state is n
composite score based on a weighted total (called the worker climate
index) that is derived from thirty-three indicators. The fifty states
and the District of Columbia were examined across the spectrum of
working and living conditions: job and income growth and distribution,
hazardous and low wage jobs, poverty and the working poor, statutory
protection and state labor department policies, equal employment
opportunity and labor organization membership, among other
indicators. A rank of one is beat fifty-one is worst. The nine
regional divisions used in this report are based on those used by the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; see map,
p. 4.
            The Southeast's extraordinary growth in jobs during the past ten
years has been accompanied by the least change in personal income of
any U.S. region. While four Southeastern states rank among the top
nine in job growth for this ten year period, eight Southeastern states
fall among the bottom eleven in personal income growth during the same
years. Table VI shows the correlation in each geographic region
between job growth, income and wage growth.
            More and more people are working full-time year-round yet have
incomes below the poverty level. These are the working poor. Working
people are much more likely to be poor in the Southeast than in any
other U.S. region. Of the ten worst states, eight are in the
Southeast--ranging from Tennessee, with 8.2 percent of its workers
below poverty level, to Mississippi at 12.7 percent (the highest
proportion in the nation).
            Similarly, Southeastern states today have the lowest per capita
incomes in the U.S., and nine of the twelve Southeastern states are
among the bottom thirteen in manufacturing wages, averaging less than
$8 per hour. The range in these states extends from $7.97 in Alabama
to the national low of $6.95 per hour in Mississippi.
            The Southeast region can rank high in job growth, and yet rank low
in wages and income, because in eight of the Southeastern states, more
than 40 percent of the manufacturing jobs are in low-wage industries
(those with national average wages of less than $8 per hour). These
include lumber and wood products, furniture and fixtures, food and
related products, textiles and apparel, rubber and plastics, leather
and tanning, and miscellaneous manufacturing jobs.
            Not surprisingly, the eight states with the least worker protection
are in the Southeast. When it comes to state statutes and labor
department policies governing the workplace, protecting workers'
rights and safety, and providing compensation for disability and
unemployment, the South falls considerably below all other
U.S. regions. At the bottom of the benefit scale, five of the six
states that pay the least for permanent total disability--under $200
per week--are in the Southeast. In the nation's twelve worst states,
the weekly unemployment benefit is $140 or less. Eight of these twelve
are in the Southeast. At the bottom in the South and in the country is
Mississippi ($105).
            Until recently, blacks and women have been 

excluded from
traditionally white male occupations: officials/administrators,
professionals, technicians, and craft workers. Southeastern states
rank on the bottom in the percent of working blacks and women employed
in these jobs.
            Findings related to the quality of life in the states also echo
some historically familiar refrains.
            * The Northeastern states report the lowest rates of poverty,
ranging from 8 percent in Connecticut to 13 percent in New_York.
            * The Southeast remains the nation's poorest region and Mississippi
(with 24 percent of its population impoverished) ranks at the bottom
of the South.
            * Blacks are most likely to be poor in the Southeast. The nine
states with the highest proportions of black poor are in the
Southeast. Rates of poverty for blacks in the South range from
Virginia's 25 percent to Mississippi's 44 percent (highest in the
nation).
            * A baby is less likely to survive its first year of life in the
Southeast. The two states with the worst infant mortality rates--over
fifteen deaths for every one thousand successful births--are
Mississippi and South_Carolina. The eleven worst states, all with
death rates of thirteen or higher, include six more states from the
Southeast.
            These and other study results are detailed in this report.
          
          
            FINDINGS:
            
              Jobs and Income
              The relationship between job growth and personal income is perhaps
the best of all signs of the economic health of a state, addressing
work opportunity as it increases or decreases over time, and the
degree to which those jobs provide workers with an adequate standard
of living. This section of the report examines employment change--the
increase or decrease in the actual number of employees--in the top
five states, the bottom five states, and the Southeast region, and
then looks at income change in the Southeast and in the nation.2 To compare changes in both employment and personal
income we looked at the same three time periods: "long term" change
during the ten years from 1975 to 1984; "short term" change from 1980
to 1984, and the most recent one year period for which data is
available, from 1984 to 1985.
              
                
                  Employment Change
                
              
              
                Top Five States
              
              During the ten-year period from 1975 to 1984, three states gained
more than one million jobs: 2.7 million in California; 2 million in
Texas; and 1.5 million in Florida. Other top ten states gained over
450,000 employees: New_York, New Jersey, Georgia, North_Carolina,

Virginia, Massachusetts, and Arizona.
              Based on the index and ranking system, the five states with the
highest level of job growth over the long-term period (1975-1984) were
California, Texas, Florida, New_York, and Georgia. During these ten
years, 17.4 million new jobs were created in the United_States. Of
this number, 7.6 million or 43.5 percent were created in the top five
states (see Table I, next page).
              For the intermediate length period (1980-1984), the same five
states were again the top job growth performers, this time accounting
for 2.6 million or 65 percent of the 3.9 million new jobs in the
United_States.
              Analysis of the short-term period (1984-1985) shows that
California, Florida, Texas and New_York retained positions in the top
five states in producing new jobs. Michigan rebounded from the loss of
100,000 jobs and 48th ranking for the 1980-1984 period to edge out
Georgia for the number five position. Over the short term, 2.75
million new jobs were created and 40 percent were created in the top
five states.
              The economies of these top five states are similar. In the 1970s,
the national economy was dominated by manufacturing, as were the
economies of the top five job creation states. In the 1980s, the rate
of job growth in the manufacturing sector has been steadily declining
with a corresponding rise in the rate of job creation in the service
sector. During the recession years (1980-1983), the top five states
lost 430,243 manufacturing jobs and gained 346,923 new service
jobs. The intermediate period (1980-1984) saw only a one percent
increase in manufacturing jobs (56,800), but a 22 percent increase in
the service sector (1,331,900 new jobs) for the top five I performers
in job growth.
              The economy of the Deep South state of Georgia, like other Southern
states, continues to be dominated by the apparel and textiles
industries. The service sector, which still ranks third behind trade
and manufacturing, accounted for 29 percent of the job growth in the
three primary sectors and 30.6 percent of the total job growth for the
1980-84 period. Georgia, like California and Florida, did not lose
jobs in the manufacturing sector; however, the rate of job growth in
manufacturing declined (7.39 percent of total job growth) in the state
for the 1980-1984 period.
              A much clearer picture of the similarities in the economies of the
top five job producing states and the U.S. economy can be seen through
a comparison over the 1980-1984 period. The U.S. experienced a very
slight increase in jobs (4.14 percent) as it moved from an employment
base of 90.4 million in 1980 to 94.2 million in 1984. The increase in
the number of service sector jobs was almost three-fourths of the net
increase in jobs in the U.S. for these five years.
              In 1980, the three leading industry sectors for job growth in the
U.S. economy were manufacturing, services and retail
trade. Manufacturing accounted for 22.4 percent of the total jobs,
services for 19.8 percent, and retail trade for 16.6 percent. These
three sectors accounted for almost 60 percent of the jobs created in
the nation. By 1984, the service sector had moved to number one and
accounted for 22 percent of total U.S. jobs. Manufacturing was second
at 21 percent and retail was third at 17.3 percent. Over the five-year
period, this represented a 3.4 percent decrease in manufacturing jobs,
an 8.1 percent increase in retail jobs, and a 15.5 percent increase in
jobs in the service sector.
              In comparing job growth in the top five states to the U.S. job
growth performance for the 19801984 period in the manufacturing,
trade, and service sectors, the decline in manufacturing is seen in
all of the top five states. Indeed, there has been a loss of jobs in
this sector in New_York and Texas and only modest increases in
California (2 percent) and Georgia (6 percent).
              In all of the top five states, the service sector is producing jobs
at an increasing rate (37 percent and 33 percent in Florida and
Georgia, and 25 percent and 18 percent in Texas and California). The
relatively low growth rate for service jobs in New_York is somewhat
misleading since that has long been the dominant sector in its
economy.
              The net effect over the five-year period in the top five states was
a 1.9 percent decrease in manufacturing jobs and a 43.5 percent
increase in service sector jobs (see Table I).
              
                Bottom Five States
              
              In ranking states according to job growth, the top five states
performed consistently. The bottom five states, however, had no
discernible job growth patterns over the long, intermediate, and
short-term time periods.
              From 1975-1984, the bottom five states in job growth were North
Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, District of Columbia, and West
Virginia. During the 1975-1984 period, these five states added only
183,000 new jobs, representing 1.05 percent of total job growth in the
U.S. for the period.
              The states in the bottom five for the 1980-1984 period; by rank,
were West_Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois. Job
growth was negative for these states, with a loss of 599,000 jobs, a
decline-of 15.3 percent.
              For the short-term period (1984-1985), the bottom five job growth
states were Oklahoma, West_Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and
Louisiana. The job loss total for this period was 8,700, a decline of
0.3 percent.
              For the intermediate period (1980-1984), the manufacturing sector
lost 673,600 jobs in these five states while services added
375,400. In every state, however, the increase in services was
insufficient to keep the net job growth from being negative.
              In Table II, the percentage of jobs in manufacturing, wholesale and
retail trade, and services are shown in 1980 and 1984 for the bottom
five states. In 1980 manufacturing is clearly the dominant job sector
in all except West_Virginia. In 1984, manufacturing is still dominant
in Michigan and Ohio, though less so. In every bottom five state, the
percentage of services jobs i had increased.
              Each of the bottom five states experienced job loss): levels
significantly worse than the U.S. as a whole dur-

ing this
period. Indeed, as a group they account for 36 percent of the
U.S. total loss of 1,864,207 jobs. On an individual state basis, this
represented a loss of 257,200 jobs or -5.3 percent for Illinois;
Michigan declined by 93,400 jobs (-2.91 percent); Ohio lost 126,300
jobs (-2.89 percent); Pennsylvania lost 128,000 jobs (-2.67 percent);
and West_Virginia lost 62,700 jobs (-9.71 percent).
              
                The Southeast
              
              Despite its overall bottom national rank in The Climate for
U.S. Workers, employment change is one category where the
Southeastern United_States did exceedingly well. In fact, for each of
the three time periods surveyed, the Southeast ranked number one as a
region in job growth, both in absolute numbers and percentage
change.
              Between 1975 and 1984, the Southeast gained 5.2 million jobs, a 32
percent increase over the ten years. Florida had the largest gain,
58.9 percent, while the smallest gain was made by West_Virginia at
1.48 percent. After Kentucky's modest gain of almost 15 percent, the
rest of the Southeastern states gained at least 20 percent. Four
states in the region had employment increases greater than 500,000,
and seven states gained between 100,000 and 300,000 jobs. West
Virginia was the only state gaining less than 30,000 jobs for the ten
years.
              When examined by sectors of the Southeast's economy, job growth
shows greater variation,withl3.5 million jobs, or 63 percent of the
total employment in 1984, in manufacturing, retail and services. The
1984 employment was distributed relatively evenly among the three
sectors in absolute and percentage terms. Manufacturing was second in
relation to the three leading sectors, encompassing 33 percent of the
employment in the three sectors, and 21 percent of the total for all
sectors.
              
                
                  Income Change
                
              
              
                The Southeast
              
              The substantial and sustained performance of the Southeast in job
growth is undercut by its personal income statistics. Here, the region
is at the bottom of the scale (see Table III).
              In 1985, personal income per capita for the region was $11,169,
last among all regions of the nation. When measured in absolute change
for 1984-1985, the region does only slightly better, moving from the
bottom rank of eighth to seventh, an absolute change of $537.
              During the 1975-1984 period, personal income per capita for the
Southeast more than doubled, gaining $6,114, a 121 percent
increase. Over the ten-year period, however, the region does not climb
from its bottom rank. In fact, the picture is even bleaker. Among the
twelve states of the Southeast, eight are ranked at fortieth or below
in personal income per capita. Only Virginia, (number 11) and Florida
(ranked 14) are above the bottom grouping. The deviation of these two
states from the regional pattern is perhaps because, unlike most
Southern_states, Virginia and Florida have the largest share of their
jobs in trade, government and services, not manufacturing.
              The performance of the Southeast during 1980-1984 was a slight
improvement. For this period, the region had an absolute gain in
personal income of $3,020 and a regional rank of five (out of
nine). This represented a 37 percent gain, exceeded only by New
England at 44 percent and the Mideast at 38 percent. As mentioned
earlier, however, this rate of growth was insufficient to move the
region's personal income off the bottom of the scale at $11,168.
              Analysts and state development officials have long argued that
industry is attracted to the South by its low wages and low
income. Certainly this correlation appears 

to hold for the ten years
between 1975-1984 (see Table III), when the region ranked number one
in job growth, eighth in personal income and seventh in hourly wages
for production workers in manufacturing.
              As Table III reveals, however, this relationship does not hold true
for all regions of the country. For example, the Far West region is
ranked number two in job growth and number three in personal
income. With a rank of four in wages, there is a correlation between
wages and income. Another example at the other end of the employment
change scale is the Rocky Mountain region, which is eighth in job
growth and seventh in personal income, yet comes in second among the
regions in wage growth.
              These variations are perhaps attributable to the job mix in each
region's economy and, to a much larger degree, the incidence of
low-wage manufacturing as a percent of the job total. For example, in
the Far West, low-wage manufacturing represents 26 percent of the
employment total, and in the Rocky Mountain region, 29 percent. In the
Southeast, however, almost half (42 percent) of all jobs are
classified as low-wage manufacturing for the ten-year period.
              In the final analysis, the significant job growth in the Southeast
region, due in large measure to its reliance upon an industries with
jobs at the lower end of the wage scale, has not led to an adequate
standard of living for a sizeable portion of its population. More
specifically, personal income change has not kept pace with the
changes in employment. The situation is one in which more and more
people work full-time year-round and still have incomes below the
poverty level. Indeed, the Southeast ranked worst of all regions when
measured in terms of the incidence of working poor as well as income
distribution, i.e., the proportion of families earning less than an
adequate income.
              
                The Nation: Low-Wage Jobs, the Working Poor, Unemployment,
and Incidence of Low-Wage Manufacturing
              
              One way to understand differences between states in wages and
income is to look at the number of low-wage jobs in the state
economy. Low-wage industries--those with national average wages of
less than $8 per hour--include lumber and wood products, furniture and
fixtures, food and related products, textiles and apparel, rubber and
plastics, leather and tanning, and miscellaneous manufacturing
jobs. We looked at these low-wage jobs as a percent of all the
manufacturing jobs in each state in 1982, and the results show why the
Southeast can rank high in job growth and yet low in wages and
income.
              Only four of the twelve Southeastern states have less than 40
percent low-wage jobs (Kentucky, West_Virginia, Louisiana and
Florida). The other eight range from 40 percent in Virginia to 62
percent low-wage jobs in North_Carolina. Also at the bottom in this
category are Oregon in the Far West, Maine in New England, and Idaho
in the Rocky Mountain region. Only the two Pacific states have a
greater dependence on low-wage jobs: Hawaii with 66 percent; and
Alaska with 77 percent of its manufacturing jobs in low-wage
industries.
              Jobs in these low-wage industry groups are too few to be counted by
our source, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the Plains states of
North Dakota and South Dakota and the Rocky Mountain state of
Wyoming. The remaining seven states in the top ten--those having less
than 18 percent low-wage manufacturing jobs--range from 6 percent in
the District of Columbia in the Mideast to 18 percent in the
Southeastern state of West_Virginia. Included in this top group are
Nevada in the Far West, Arizona in the Southwest, Michigan in the
Great Lakes, Kansas in the Plains, and Utah in the rocky Mountain
Region.
              
                
                  Incidence of Working Poor
                
              
              Due in large part to the shift from manufacturing to services jobs
and to the inadequacy of the minimum wage, more and more people work
full-time year-round and still have income below the poverty
level. These are the working poor, and they are measured here as a
percent of all householders who worked in 1979. Only three regions are
represented in the ten states with the lowest proportion of working
poor: New England with three states, the Mideast with four states, and
the Great Lakes with three states.
              States with less than 4 percent working poor are Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New_York, and New Jersey. States with 4 to 4.5 percent
working poor are Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Illinois, and New Hampshire.
              A person is much more likely to be poor despite working if they
live in the Southeast: of the ten worst states, eight are in the
Southeast. These range from Tennessee, with 8.2 percent of its workers
below poverty level, to Mississippi, with 12.7 percent, the highest
proportion of working poor in the nation. The only states to join the
Southeast at the bottom in this category are New Mexico and South
Dakota. The only Southeastern states with lower percentages of working
poor are North_Carolina (7.7 percent), West_Virginia (7.2 percent),
Florida (7.1 percent), and Virginia (5.8 percent).
              
                
                  Unemployment Rates
                
              
              There is considerably more controversy about the accuracy of
measures of joblessness and the connection between unemployment and
economic hardship. It is generally conceded that the rate of long-term
unemployed, if considered separately, would be lower; and 

that the
rate for short-term unemployment would be considerably higher if there
were more adequate measurement of economic distress in rural areas and
of blacks and many other urban residents.
              Unemployment compensation, for example, is often used to supplement
survey information in determining rates, yet many rural people
traditionally do not apply for unemployment, and many are not eligible
in the first place. Further, since labor on a family farm is counted
as employed whether paid or not, even farmers facing foreclosure would
not be reflected in the statistics. In urban areas the count misses
many in distress--black youth and black_men, the homeless, migrant
workers and illegal immigrants--who distrust the system and evade
attempts to measure them.
              The unemployment rate ignores the underground economy, unemployment
compensation and multiple incomes within the same family. Yet it also
misses the many people who work full-time at low_incomes--an issue we
discuss in connection with low-wage jobs and the working poor. The
rate would also be a great deal higher if it measured workers who have
become so discouraged about finding a job that they have stopped
looking for one, or workers forced into part-time jobs because
full-time jobs are not available. The discouraged worker is not
counted in the survey at all; the part-time worker is counted as
employed. We must recognize, then, that the unemployment rates we
discuss are but indications of the true depth of economic distress.
              We looked at the percent of the civilian labor force that was
unemployed for both 1984 and 1985, and the percent of the youth labor
force that was unemployed for 1984.
              Unemployment rates for 1984 for the civilian labor force varied
from a low of 4.3 percent in South Dakota to the national high of 15.0
percent in West_Virginia. For youth the lowest rate was 9.1 percent,
also in South Dakota; the highest was in Mississippi at 32.7
percent.
              Looking at civilian unemployment alone for 1984, the rates were
lowest in the six states with 5 percent or less of their labor force
without a job: South Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Virginia, and Arizona. Six states had double-digit
rates: Alaska in the Pacific; Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and West
Virginia in the Southeast; and Michigan in the Great Lakes region.
              Youth unemployment, on the other hand, was at double-digit rates in
1984 in all but three states: South Dakota (9.1 percent unemployment);
New Hampshire (9.6 percent); and Massachusetts (9.6 percent). The five
worst states for young workers that year were all in the Southeast. In
Mississippi youth unemployment was higher than 30 percent; in four
other Southeastern states the rate exceeded 25 percent: Tennessee
(25.8 percent); West_Virginia (28.3 percent); and Alabama (29.5
percent.)
              For the civilian labor force in 1985 unemployment rates ranged from
a low of 3.9 percent in Massachusetts to a high of 13.0 percent in
West_Virginia. Of the seven states with rates below 5.0 percent, five
are in New England: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut
and Rhode Island. Maryland is in the Mideast; and the lone state
outside the northeastern U.S. in the top group is the Plains state of
Kansas.
              Unemployment was worst in the three states with rates exceeding 10
percent, all in the Southeast: 

Mississippi (10.3 percent); Lousiana
(11.5 percent); and West_Virginia, which once again had the highest
unemployment rate in the country (13.0 percent). Rounding out the
bottom seven, the four other states with unemployment rates at 9.0
percent or higher were Illinois, Michigan, Alaska, and Kentucky,
another Southeastern state.
              Sharp regional differences emerge when we look at the change in the
unemployment rates from 1984 to 1985. Of the seventeen states from New
England to the Mideast and across to the Great Lakes region, only
Connecticut had an increase in unemployment (0.3%). On the opposite
coast, only one of the four states in the Far West and neither of the
two Pacific states showed an increase in unemployment. Yet in all four
states in the Southwest and four of five states in the Rocky Mountain
region unemployment grew worse. There were similar increases from 1984
to 1985 in four of seven Plains states and four of the twelve states
in the Southeast.
              
                
                  Measures of Income
                
              
              
                Change in Personal Income
              
              Personal income figures tell how well the people of a state have
actually benefited from its jobs--whether those jobs provide workers
with an adequate standard of living. We looked at each state's long-
and short-term change in personal income per capita--the actual dollar
amount gained--over the same periods we used to examine job growth:
1975 to 1984; 1980 to 1984; and 1984 to 1985.
              During the most recent period, income rose over $1,000 in four
states. The greatest increase—$1,127— was in Nebraska, followed
by Connecticut with $1,080, the District of Columbia with $1,039, and
Massachusetts with $1,035 gained. New Jersey, New Hampshire and
Maryland had gains for the year of over $900 in personal income per
capita. The remaining states in the top ten--New_York, Virginia and
Minnesota--had increases over $800. The greatest gains, then, occurred
in the northeastern part of the nation: three of the top ten states
are in New England and four are in the Mideast, while two are Plains
states and one is in the Southeast.
              The bottom fourteen states showed gains of less than $500 in
personal income per capita over the 1984-85 period. Seven of the
twelve Southeastern states make up half of this group: North_Carolina
($462), Arkansas ($446), West_Virginia ($404), South_Carolina ($403),
Kentucky ($353), Mississippi ($351), and Louisiana ($274). The
remaining seven include two Southwest states, New Mexico ($485) and
Oklahoma ($474); three in the Rocky Mountain region, Idaho ($459),
Utah ($451), and Montana ($121); South Dakota ($303) in the Plains;
and Alaska ($206) in the Pacific. Montana is the only state with a
gain for the year of less than $200; Alaska and Louisiana are next to
last.
              The dollar change in personal income per capita for the preceding
five years, from 1980 to 1984, was greatest in eight states showing
gains over $4,000. Connecticut topped the nation with an increase of
$4,988, followed by the District of Columbia and Massachusetts. Alaska
in the Pacific region is the only state in the top eight not in the
northeastern U.S.; the others are in New England or the Mideast
region, including New Jersey, New Hampshire, New_York and Maryland.
              Dollar gains over the five-year period were less than $2,000 in
only two states, West_Virginia and, lowest in the country, Wyoming
with an increase of only $1,229. Eight other states in the bottom ten
showed dollar gains less than $2,500: Nevada, Oregon, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho and Utah.
              Over the ten-year period from 1975 to 1984, the largest long-term
dollar gains in personal income per capita were in the top eleven
states. In two of these states the gains were over $9,000:
Connecticut, with a ten-year income increase of $9,582, was followed
by the District of Columbia, with $9,118. In four states increases
were greater than $8,000: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
and Alaska. The remaining five, where increases exceeded $7,500, are
Maryland, New_York, California, Colorado, and Virginia.
              The smallest long-term increases in personal income occurred in the
four states where gains were under $5,000: Idaho and Utah in the
Rockies; and West_Virginia and Mississippi--lowest in the nation--in
the Southeast. Another five Southeastern states are among the eleven
where dollar gains were lower than $5,500: South_Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Alabama and Arkansas. Also in this group are New Mexico in
the Southwest and Montana in the Rocky Mountain region.
              
                Income Distribution
              
              We looked at median family income for 1979, the midpoint of our
period for long-term income change, and learned that families were
struggling hardest to make ends meet in the Southeast. In ten of the
twelve states in the region--excluding Virginia and Louisiana--over 70
percent of families with income earned less than $25,000. Also in this
bottom group are Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, New Mexico, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Vermont and Maine; in this category the proportion of
families earning less than an adequate income ranges from 70.8 percent
in Montana to the worst in the nationߞ79.6 percent—in Arkansas.
              No Southwestern or Southeastern state, however, is among the top
ten, where less than 60 percent of working families earned under
$25,000. The state with the lowest proportion is Alaska, with 43.6
percent. The other Pacific state, Hawaii, is also in the top ten. In
the Far West are California and Washington; in New England,
Connecticut. Maryland and New Jersey from the Mideast, Illinois and
Michigan from the Great Lakes, and Wyoming from the Rocky Mountain
region are also among the top states with the lowest proportion of
families earning less than $25,000 in 1979.
              
                Average Annual Pay
              
              Average annual salaries of most workers in 1983, the midpoint of
our time frame for short-term income change, were examined to fill out
the national income picture. The eight states where annual pay was
less than $15,000 include four from the Southeast: North_Carolina,
South_Carolina, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Also at the 

bottom in this
category are Vermont and Maine from New England, and Nebraska and
South Dakota from the Plains states.
              The twelve states where workers made the most in 1983 include no
Southeastern state and only one-Texas--from the Southwest. Again
Alaska tops the nation, paying an average $23,844. The other ten
states in the top twelve averaged annual pay between $18,000 and
$20,000. Joining D.C. from the Mideast region are New_York, New
Jersey, and Delaware. In this category from the Great Lakes region are
Michigan and Illinois, and from the Far West, California and
Washington. One state in each of three other regions averaged over
$18,000 in 1983: Connecticut in New England; Texas in the Southwest;
and Colorado in the Rocky Mountain region.
              
                Cost of Living
              
              Income does not always keep pace with the cost of living,
however. In the second quarter of 1985, the American Chamber of
Commerce Researchers Association (ACCRA) measured the cost of living
for the largest available city in 45 states. These measures and the
ranking we derived from them--while limited by the considerations
detailed in Appendix I--show that in some relatively high-income
states such as Alaska, New_York and New Jersey, there is also a
relatively higher cost of living. The nine measured cities with a cost
of living higher than the national average (indexed by ACCRA at 100)
are topped by Anchorage, Alas., at 139.2, followed by New_York City at
137.3, and the Newark, N.J., metro area at 122.7.
              Lower wages, on the other hand, are not always accompanied by a
lower cost of living. Of the twelve Southeastern cities measured, five
are higher than the national average and seven are lower. The fifteen
cities with a cost of living lower than the national average are led
by Fort Smith, Ark., with the lowest ACCRA index, 92.3. The most
expensive Southeastern city, Atlanta, Gal, is indexed at 106.1. Other
measured cities in the region with a cost of living higher than the
national average are Birmingham, Ala.; Columbia, S.C.; Jacksonville,
Fla.; and Hampton Roads, Va., which includes the metro area
encompassing Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Newport News.
              
                Wages of Manufacturing Workers
              
              To discover state and regional differences in manufacturing wages,
we looked at average hourly earnings of production workers in 1984,
the starting point of our one-year period for income change. Nine of
the twelve Southeastern states--excluding Louisiana, West_Virginia and
Kentucky--are among the bottom thirteen states, where these workers
average less than $8 per hour. (This figure is also the measure of a
low-wage job.) The range in the states averaging the lowest hourly
wage is from $7.97 in Alabama to the national low of $6.95 per hour in
Mississippi. Joining the Southeast at the bottom in this category are
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island from New England; New
Mexico from the Southwest; and North Dakota and South Dakota from the

Plains region.
              The top eleven states--where production workers in manufacturing
averaged over $10 per hour in 1984--include no Southwestern state and
only Louisiana from the Southeast. The range here is from the highest
average hourly wage in the nation, $12.25 in the Pacific state of
Alaska, to $10.03 in Wisconsin in the Great Lakes region. Also in the
top eleven from the Great Lakes are Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois; the Rocky Mountain state of Montana; Oregon from the Far
West, Iowa among the Plains states, and from the Mideast region, the
District of Columbia.
              
                Wage Growth 1980-1984
              
              There are also differences between states in changes in pay over
time. We looked at the gain in average hourly wages of production
workers in manufacturing from 1980 to 1984, the same time frame for
our examination of short-term income change. Only production workers
in South Dakota gained less than one dollar per hour, posting a
sixty-five cents gain over the entire five-year period. Other states
where workers gained less than $1.50 are North Dakota ($1.30), Nevada
($1.40), and Alabama ($1.48). Rounding out the bottom ten are
Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, and Hawaii.
              Production workers in manufacturing gained more than $2.50 per hour
from 1980 to 1984 in only one state, Michigan, where wages increased
by $2.66. Other states where workers gained more than $2.25 are Ohio
($2.39), Louisiana ($2.32), and Oklahoma ($2.28). Additional states
where the gain in hourly wages exceeded $2 over these five years are
New Jersey, New Mexico, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Connecticut,
Maine, California, Illinois, and Alaska.
            
            
              Poverty
              
                
                  Persons in Poverty
                
              
              Six of the ten states with the largest proportion of poor_people in
1979 are in the Southeast. All but one Southeastern
state-Virginia--are in the bottom sixteen. These range from Florida
with 13.5 percent poor persons to Mississippi with 23.9
percent. Joining the Southeast in the bottom ten are South Dakota,
16.9 percent poor persons; New Mexico, 17.6 percent; and the District
of Columbia, 18.6 percent. Texas,14.7 percent, joins the bottom
sixteen.
              Wyoming has the lowest proportion of poor, 7.9 percent. Other
states in the top ten--with less than 10 percent poor in their
populations--are Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Wisconsin,
Indiana, Nevada, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, end Minnesota.
              
                
                  Black Persons in Poverty
                
              
              In 1979, a black person was most likely to be poor in the
Southeast: all of the nine states with the highest proportion of black
poor persons are in the Southeast; ten of the eleven worst states are
in the Southeast. The only state with a similarly high proportion of
black poor is Rhode Island. The range in the bottom eleven is from 30
percent in North_Carolina to 44 percent of the black_population living
in poverty in Mississippi. The only Southeastern states not ranked
near the bottom still have over a quarter black poor: Virginia (26
percent), and West_Virginia (27 percent).
              The top ten states--where blacks are least likely to be poor--range
from 21.3 percent in Idaho to 10.9 percent black poor in Alaska. Other
states with the lowest proportion of the black_population living below
the poverty level are North and South Dakota in the Plains; Maine,
Vermont and New Hampshire in New England; Hawaii in the Pacific; and
Nevada and Washington in the Far West.
            
            
              State Actions
              
                
                  Statutory Protection of
Workers
                
              
              We examined the states to see how many of fourteen common state
statutes protecting workers were in effect, and whether or not their
provisions made them meaningful. State statutes are not counted if
they do not meet certain criteria; for example, state
anti-discrimination acts covering employment practices of the state
but not private employers. State laws which are counted meet the
minimum standards.3
               The minimum standards are described in Appendix II,
along with the table showing which statutes were in force in each
state a8 of Summer 1985. These are not included here but are available
with the full text of the report. See Order Info, page
2.
              Briefly, these are laws prohibiting sexual harassment, electronic
surveillance, and discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
color, sex or physical handicap; laws providing whistleblower
protection, access to personnel files, maternity leave, and time off
to vote; laws establishing minimum wages, maximum hours, mandatory pay
for overtime, timely payment of wages, and equal pay by sex; and laws
guaranteeing employees' right to know about exposure to hazardous
materials on the job and to obtain information about their welfare
fund.
              The eight states with the least worker protection are all in the
Southeast. In Alabama and Mississippi, not one of the fourteen laws
had been enacted; in South_Carolina only one; in Virginia and
Louisiana only two; in Tenn-

essee, Florida and North_Carolina only
three. The other two states in the bottom ten are the Plains states of
Iowa and North Dakota.
              The state which comes within one law of having all fourteen is
California, which lacks only legislation prohibiting electronic
surveillance. The other states in the top ten--those providing the
most protection to workers through state statutes--are Connecticut,
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Alaska, West_Virginia,
Kentucky, and Maryland.
              
                
                  State Minimum Wages
                
              
              At the end of 1985--when the federal minimum wage, which has not
been adjusted for inflation since 1981, remained at $3.35--state
minimum wages in non-farm employment ranged from a high of $3.90 in
the District of Columbia to a low of $1.40 in Texas. That is among
states having minimum wage standards for at least some of their
workers; nine states have none at all, including six states in the
Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South_Carolina
and Tennessee. Two of the bottom nine are Plains states, Iowa and
Missouri; and one, Arizona, is in the Southwest.
              Of the forty-two states with minimum wage statutes, twenty-two set
a rate even lower than the federal minimum. There are many gaps and
inconsistencies in coverage even where minimum standards do exist. For
example, the state maximum of $3.10 in North Dakota affects only
professional, technical, clerical and mercantile workers. The minimum
for manufacturing workers is lower at $2.95, and for public
housekeeping workers lower still at $2.80. In Utah the maximum of
$2.75 applies only in the Salt Lake City area; elsewhere it is
$2.50.
              Three states besides the District of Columbia have a minimum wage
higher than the federal minimum: Alaska, Maine, and
Connecticut. Sixteen states equal the federal minimum of $3.35:
Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, New_York, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vemlont, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and North_Carolina.
              
                
                  Maximum Benefits for
Disability
                
              
              While all states provide disability benefits for job-related
injury, there is considerable variation in the maximum weekly
benefit. The maximum weekly benefit for permanent total disability of
$1,114 in Alaska in the Pacific region was almost two times the next
highest payment, $580 in Iowa. The top nine states, which paid over
$350 per week as of January, 1985, also included Illinois, Michigan,
Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the District of
Columbia.
              At the bottom of the benefit scale, five of the six states that pay
the least for permanent total disability--under $200 per week--are in
the Southeast region: Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia and
Mississippi. Indiana in the Great Lakes region is also in this
group. Joining them in the bottom ten--where states pay less than $220
per week for job-related injury--are the Plains state of Nebraska and
three Southwestern states: Oklahoma, Arizona and Texas.
              
                
                  Maximum Unemployment Benefits
                
              
              As of January 1984, weekly unemployment benefits varied from a high
in Massachusetts of $278 (where the range is from $185 to $278) to the
national lows of $105 in Mississippi and Missouri. In nine states the
top range of the weekly unemployment check exceeds $200:
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Alaska, West_Virginia,
Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
              In the twelve worst states, the weekly unemployment benefit is $140
or less. Eight of these twelve are in the Southeast: Kentucky,
Virginia, Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, South_Carolina, Tennessee, and
Mississippi. The Plains states at the bottom are Missouri, Nebraska,
and South Dakota; the lone Southwestern state is Arizona.
              
                
                  State Per Capita Expenditure
                
              
              One measure of a state's investment in its citizens is its per
capita expenditures--the money spent per person (based on 1980
population) by state government in all categories. The eight states
investing $1,500 or more per capita are led by Alaska ($2,548) and
Wyoming ($2,132). Other states with high per capita expenditures are
Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Delaware.
              Eight states spend less than $1,000 per capita: Ohio, Indiana,
Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, New Hampshire, and Missouri,
which spends the least, $807 per person.
              
                
                  State Aid to Schools
                
              
              As an indication of state investment in education, we looked at
state revenue contributions per elementary and secondary school pupil
for the 1980-81 school year. This figure was chosen to reflect state
effort because the more 

familiar measure, per pupil expenditures,
includes federal and local funds. It should be noted, however, that in
some states, by law, localities bear the heavier proportion of costs,
and this is not reflected here.
              State revenue contributions per pupil are lowest in New Hampshire
($143.04) and second lowest in Nebraska ($688.77) The other nine
states contributing less than $1,000 per pupil are Mississippi,
Arkansas, South_Carolina, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Vermont, Missouri, and South Dakota.
              The state contribution is highest in Alaska ($4,210.66), and second
highest in Washington ($2,366.89). Other states in the top ten, where
revenue contributions per pupil exceed $1,500, are Hawaii, Delaware,
New_York, Georgia, Florida, Minnesota, California, and New Mexico.
            
            
              Hazardous Jobs
              
                
                  Job-Related Death Rates
                
              
              The two industry sectors with the highest job-related death rates
(excluding agriculture) are construction, with a death rate of 37 per
1,000 workers from 1945 to 1983, and mining/quarrying, with a death
rate for the same period of 50 per 1,000 workers. Employment in these
two hazardous job sectors is measured here as a percent of all
nonagricultural employment in the states for 1982. Since this was a
recession year, the figures are lower than would normally be the
case.
              The eight states with the lowest proportion of these jobs--3.5
percent or less--are the District of Columbia, New_York, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Oregon.
              The seven states with the greatest dependence on these jobs--in
excess of 10 percent of total employment--are Texas, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Alaska, Louisiana, West_Virginia, and Wyoming, which at 25.6
percent has a proportion of hazardous jobs almost twice as large as
the second worst state, 14.6 percent in West_Virginia.
              
                
                  Rates of Occupational Disease
                
              
              The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has
identified six industry groups (excluding agriculture) generally
considered to have unusually high rates of occupational disease. These
are jobs in mining, cotton weaving mills and other cotton products
industries, chemicals and allied products, rubber and miscellaneous
products, and leather and tanning. Here we are looking at employment
in these groups as a percent of all nonagricultural employment in the
states for 1982. Again, during this recession year, the figures are
lower than normal.
              The states with the lowest proportion of jobs having high rates of
occupational disease--less than one percent--are Oregon, Washington,
and Nebraska. States with 1.5 percent or less of these jobs are South
Dakota, Minnesota, Vermont, Maryland, and Florida.
              The states with the most jobs having high occupational disease
rates--in excess of 10 percent of all nonagricultural jobs--are
Delaware, West_Virginia, and Wyoming. Other states with 7 percent or
higher are Kentucky, South_Carolina, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and
Oklahoma.
            
            
              Commuting Time
              
                
                  Travel Time to Work
                
              
              Time spent commuting to and from work is more than a measure of
inconvenience, in this case, a one-way travel time of 45 minutes or
more. It also reflects the geographic distribution of jobs within a
state and the degree of job concentration in congested urban areas.
              In the top ten states, less than 6 percent of all workers have a
one-way commute of 45 minutes or more. This group is dominated by the
Plains region: Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa--all in the
top five, with less than 5 percent of all workers--and Kansas. Also in
the top five is the Rocky Mountain state of Montana. The remaining
states in the top ten are Alaska, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Rhode
Island.
              Four of the worst five, where over 15 percent of all workers have a
one-way commute of 45 minutes or more, are in the Mideast: New_York
with 25.3 percent of all workers, the District of Columbia (21
percent), Maryland (18 percent), and New Jersey (16 percent). Illinois
(17 percent) is also in this group. Other states in the bottom ten are
Louisiana, Virginia and West_Virginia, Pennsylvania and California.
            
            
              Health Care
              
                
                  Number of Physicians
                
              
              As one indication of the availability of health_care, we looked at
the number of physicians per 100,000 people, based on the 1980
population. The rate is highest in the District of Columbia, with 511
physicians per 100,000. 

The top eight states in this category have a
rate over 200 and except for California, all are in the Northeast:
Maryland, New_York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode
Island.
              Six of the thirteen states with the fewest physicians are in the
Southeast. Their rates range from 127 per 100,000 in West_Virginia to
Mississippi, where the rate is the lowest in the nation at 102. Other
Southeastern states in the bottom thirteen are Kentucky, South
Carolina, Alabama and Arkansas, joined by Indiana, Oklahoma, Iowa,
South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, and Idaho.
              
                
                  Infant Mortality
                
              
              A telling indication of the quality of health_care in a state is
its infant mortality rate, the number of infant deaths before age one,
per thousand live births. The two states with the worst infant
mortality rates--over 15 deaths for every thousand births--are
Mississippi and South_Carolina. The eleven worst states, all with
death rates of 13 or higher, include West_Virginia, Alabama, North
Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Georgia, and, from outside the
Southeast, Michigan, Illinois, and Delaware.
              A baby has its best chance of surviving its first year in Vermont,
with 7.7 infant deaths per thousand, and in nine other states with
infant mortality rates of 10 or below: New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Hawaii and New Mexico.
            
            
              Equal Employment
              
                
                  Traditionally White Male Jobs
                
              
              Until recently, blacks and women have been excluded from
traditionally white male (TWM) occupations, which are defined here as
officials/administrators, professionals, technicians, and craft
workers. What is being measured here is the number of blacks and women
who were employed in these jobs as a percent of all blacks and women
who were employed in private industry in 1981. Black men, black_women,
and white_women are ranked separately.
              The six states with the highest proportion of working black_women
holding TWM jobs--over 20 percent--are Montana, Idaho, Washington,
California, New Hampshire and Vermont. Vermont at 32 percent
outdistances second place Idaho at 24 percent.
              Ten of the fourteen states where black_women are more likely to be
excluded from these occupations--less than 13 percent of working black
women in TWM jobs--are in the Southeast. Only Virginia and West
Virginia in the region have slightly higher rates. The bottom fourteen
range from 12.9 percent in Alabama to 9.3 percent in South
Carolina. Only Wisconsin at 9.0 percent has a lower proportion of
working black_women in these occupations; and only Wyoming, South
Dakota and Nevada join the Southeast from other regions at the bottom
in this category.
              The thirteen states with the highest proportion of working black
men in TWM jobs--over 30 percent--are Idaho, Montana, Utah, New
Mexico, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
California.
              The thirteen states where black_men are still likely to be excluded
from these occupations--less than 25 percent of working black_men in
TWM jobs--include eight of the Southeastern states: South_Carolina,
Kentucky, Arkansas, North_Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, and
Alabama. The three states with the lowest proportions, however, are
North and South Dakota and Wisconsin. North Dakota at 7 percent is
significantly more exclusionary than next worst Wisconsin, where 19
percent of working black_men hold jobs traditionally denied to
them.
              In fourteen states more than 26 percent of the working white_women
are employed in TWM jobs. The proportion is far higher in the District
of Columbia (43 percent) than in second place New Mexico (29.3
percent). New_York, Maryland, Delaware, North Dakota, Washington,
California, Colorado, Montana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Alaska,
Virginia and Texas also have a high proportion of working white_women
in TWM jobs.
              In the bottom ten states, the proportion of working white_women
holding TWM jobs is 21.4 percent or less. Eight of the ten are in the
Southeast, from Alabama at 21.4 percent to the national low of 17.0
percent in Arkansas. The remaining bottom ten states are Mississippi,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North_Carolina, South_Carolina and Georgia from
the Southeast, and Utah and Indiana.
            
            
              Labor Membership
              
                
                  Participation in Unions
                
              
              As an indication of freedom to organize bargaining units in the
workplace, we looked at labor organization membership as a percent of
non-agricultural employment in 1980. States with the greatest
proportion of workers affililiated with labor or membership
organizations--over 30 percent--are New_York, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiaian, Washington, West_Virginia, and
Alaska.
              Sixteen states have the lowest labor organization membership in
their workforces, less than 18 percent, and eight of the sixteen are
in the Southeast: Lousiana, Mississipppi, Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia,
Florida and North and South_Carolina, which at 9.6 and 7.8 percents,
respectively, have the lowest proportion in the country. Three of the
remaining states are in the Plains region: North and South Dakota and
Kansas. The others are Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, New Hampshire and
Utah.
            
          
          
            CONCLUSIONS:
            While this report began with a number of conclusions to be drawn
from some thirty-three indicators of the quality of working life, the
heart of the issue--the overall climate for workers in the U.S.--lies
within the realm of jobs and income. From this perspective, several
key points are clear:
            * The U.S. economy is undergoing a major restructuring away from
traditional manufacturing jobs and toward a technology-driven economy
dominated by 

service jobs.
            * Contraction in manufacturing and expansion in services and
high-tech industries is uneven. The Southeast in particular lags
behind the national trend, and rural areas across the nation are
suffering the most, with the slowest job growth and the lowest incomes
for workers.
            * This unevenness in job and income growth has been exacerbated in
the farm states and the energy states--notably Alaska--where
conditions have deteriorated during the past two years. This time
period is not covered here in the same depth as the preceding ten
years, and this report may have captured a high point in their
economic well-being to which they may not return for some time to
come.
            * The transition to the new national job mix and away from
traditional manufacturing jobs is causing serious dislocations of
workers which, in the absence of a human resource development policy,
threaten to become longterm. The new poverty figures released August
1986, too late for consideration in this study, show a new and growing
class of working poor.
            * The thousands of new jobs that are being created are seldom
filled by these dislocated workers, whose education and skills do not
match the qualifications for high-tech manufacturing and service
jobs.
            * Even those dislocated workers who can make the leap from
traditional manufacturing to the new kinds of jobs are earning
substantially less money now. Fast food chains are not paying
steelworker wages.
            * These changes in the U.S. economy and the consequences for
workers caught in shrinking job areas have profound implications for
the Southeast. Despite numerical gains in job growth that lead the
nation and recent improvements in state financing of education, the
region has failed to meet the standards set by the rest of the nation
in almost every other way: the smallest gains in wages and per capita
personal income, the largest proportion of working poor, the highest
incidences of poverty, and so on.
            * The challenge and the task that face the Southeast today and in
the future is to create jobs with the income and benefits needed to
bring the region's workers above the poverty level--not just new jobs
as in the past, but jobs that will significantly improve the standard
of living for people who work full-time, year-round.
            * The reality is that in order to attract these better jobs, the
Southeast must improve the quality of education. Recent steps in a
number of states in the region to set higher standards and increase
the state share of financing elementary and secondary schools are keys
to a long-term strategy. Until it begins to take effect, another
generation will leave the schools and enter the job market with skills
and abilities well below those of workers in other regions, and in too
many instances functionally illiterate.
            * States that have been successful in attracting better jobs, as in
Massachusetts, have invested in education. States that have been able
to counter the shock of the structual changes in the economy, as is
beginning to happen in the Great Lakes states, have successfully
diversified their job mix. Not coincidentally, these are also the
states and regions that provide the greatest degree of worker
protection and the most consideration for workers who become disabled
or unemployed. They have higher wages and lower rates of poverty, and
a better chance of rebounding from periods of unemployment.
            * One of the most striking and consistent regional performances is
the grouping of the Southeastern states at the very bottom of the
rankings for equal employment opportunity. The glaring maldistribution
of the benefits of employment away from the large population of
minorities and women damages the entire region.
            * There are in effect two Souths: one where jobs and income are
available, and one where they are not. Moreover, the effects are even
more severe for blacks and women in the rural areas of the region.
            * Regardless of improvements that may be made in job creation,
human resource development, and education, unless these improvements
are available to black and white Southerners alike, the region will
remain the worst in the nation for wage-earners and their families.
            * The poor, the working poor, minorities and women--especially in
the rural South--have formed a permanent underclass in the region, one
that has been called "disadvantaged" and "structurally unemployed" for
more than twenty years. With recent changes in federal policies and
programs, their lot has deteriorated below even the poverty levels of
the early 1960s. Given the climate for workers in the region, there
are few chances indeed for these groups to help themselves. In the
absence of policies and programs that directly address their needs,
there is little hope for help from other sources.
          
          
            Kenny Johnson is the director of the Southern Labor
Institute, a project of the Southern_Regional_Council. A native of
Louisiana, he is a former regional director of the National Rural
Center. Johnson joined the Council after having served as field
director of the Voter Education Project. Marilyn Scurlock is a staff
member of the Southern Labor Institute and a former staffer of the
Southern Office of the National Rural Center.
          
        
