The Commission recommended that special subsidy programs similar to the food stamp program in principle be extended to housing and health care. Coupons that are negotiable for purchase of special commodities would be sold to program participants. As their income increased, therefore, participants would automatically be phased out of the program.

Third, the governmental structure of rural America must be modernized. The Commission was of the view that the piecemeal fractionated planning programs of the present would not suffice in coping with the problems of low-income areas. Therefore, it recommended the creation of developmental regions throughout the United States, with each region made up of coterminal multicounty area development districts. Each area development district should be delineated in such a way that it contains a developmental center, or it should receive a commitment from the Federal Government to provide the funds necessary to develop the infrastructure for such a center. Federal grants and loans should be provided to the development districts and regions for planning purposes. Special subsidies should be provided for area development districts and regions that develop and carry out effective planning programs. The use of industrial subsidies by local government should be discouraged, but the Federal Government should be asked to liberalize investment tax credits and depreciation schedules for firms locating in or expanding in area development districts which include redevelopment districts. Emanating from the growth centers, programs should be developed to provide access to health, education, and manpower services for the people living throughout the area development districts.

The fourth major category of recommendations concerns human resource development. There is a need for improved health and family planning services. And it is imperative that we do a better job of occupational preparation in our schools. General education must be improved; training programs in rural areas must place better emphasis upon nonfarm vocational training. Testing and counseling programs must be expanded in schools in rural areas. And there should be effective coordination of counseling with representatives of the employment service and agricultural agencies to assure due consideration of farm and nonfarm employment opportunities.

A massive human reclamation program is needed, including expansion of preschool programs for children; compensatory education programs in the elementary and secondary schools; intensive occupational preparatory programs; on-the-job training programs; special programs to upgrade skills and programs of relocation assistance. A nationwide comprehensive manpower program should be initiated to provide improved job information to potential employees and labor supply information to employers. In order to help guide migration, the Commission recommended that the program of relocation assistance of the U.S. Department of Labor be expanded, and that assistance be provided for workers who cannot find gainful employment where they now live but for whom jobs and training opportunities can be located in other labor market areas. The greatest need for this program should be for intercounty, within-State mobility. Public subsidization of the development of growth centers and assistance in relocation to those centers should greatly decrease the long-distance migration in the United States.

96-624-68

Through concentration of public investment in the development of the infrastructure and of housing in the growth centers, providing incentives for industrial development, and assisting people to be relocated to the areas experiencing growth, many of the evils of longdistance migration can be overcome.

Now, in closing, let me say that I think this conference has focused upon two of the most important questions this society faces at this time. They are these:

Where shall the people live and work in the future? And, how shall the people share in the benefits of the growth of the country?

Mr. Chairman, we have not mounted a meaningful program of research on these questions.

I am convinced that the problems of poverty will not be solved until we have removed the conditions that create poverty. The appropriation of a limited amount of money to help those currently in need will not provide the solution. A piecemeal approach is doomed to failure. Even a coordinated attack that tries to alter the system and to help men adjust to changes within it will not bring immediate abolition of poverty.

The costs of the program that I have discussed here are astronomical. But I am convinced that the costs of failure to adopt such an approach are totally unthinkable.

Thank you.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.

And now the former director of technology, management division, of Stanford Research Institute, presently professor of management at the University of Texas, Mr. Albert Shapero.

Biographical Sketch: Albert Shapero

Professor of management, the University of Texas; former director of technology management division, Stanford Research Institute; member, National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering Committee on Science, Engineering and Regional Economic Development, and Commerce Technical Advisory Board Panel on Technical Manpower; research and consulting largely on the management of technical and intellectual resources and on the impact of technological change and of research and development programs.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT SHAPERO, PROFESSOR OF MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

Mr. SHAPERO. I would not consider assessing Dr. Bishop's excellent paper. Rather I would like to take off from his last questions concerning where and how people shall live in the future, to see if I cannot add some minor variations on the theme of this morning.

Throughout the conference, we have heard voiced a proper concern with the here and now, and with the rectifying of injustices and the discontinuance of degradations that exist in our current society. We have properly talked of the steps to take care of these conditions.

There is a difference between the short run and the long run that concerns me. It is desperately important to do something about the now, and to do something about it that is useful and helpful. However, I am concerned that in the long term many of the things we do with a short run perspective will be self-defeating or, at best, a stopgap, and may create a second round of problems equal in magnitude, and equally onerous if not considered and designed properly.

I would like, therefore, to discuss one or two of the points that occurred to me while hearing this morning's talks, and to explore some of the questions, considerations and alternatives that are upon

us.

One, there is the question of the kinds of jobs, the kinds of economic endeavor that will face us in the near future. Today we are technically capable of automating any activity that is-or can be made routine, repeatable, and specifiable. In the near and foreseeable future, we will see increasing automation. All that is holding up automation is a combination of cost factors and social-industrial inertia. Many, if not most, of the steps proposed here today will accelerate the process of automation at the same time that they prepare the presently unemployed for jobs that will be destroyed by the very actions taken.

I think that we have had an artifact in the demands made upon our manpower by the Vietnam war. This has masked a situation in which we are witnessing or are about to witness a shift in the job structure of the country that I think will accelerate. Shipments of computers have gone up radically in the last few years. Our ability to instrument and control mechanical and electrical processes is going up geometrically. Thus any long-overdue improvement in wages and any increase in the competition for human resources will overcome the cost barriers and the social and industrial inertia that presently act to brake the process.

If you look at the agriculture in States that are economically advanced, you will see industrialized or industrializing agriculture. This was pointed out as a continuing process everywhere. Thus to repeat— if we properly raise the wage and income level of people presently employed as labor in agriculture, we will accelerate the process of eliminating many of their jobs.

As a consequence I think we are going to have to take a longer look at how we prepare people for jobs, and what jobs we prepare them for, because it is not only the short term, but the long term that is pressing in upon us in an accelerating fashion.

I would like to raise a second question. What are the dynamics of migration? How and why do people move from place A to place B, and what can be done about it if we want to change the pattern? Is it only a matter of job opportunity and simple differentials in economic and social conditions?

From what we have heard today, particularly in what Calvin Beale 'brought forth, we learn that people do not go to cities for particular jobs they know about-they respond to information from relatives. I can emphasize this point of the importance of social networks by some data I collected on a group that probably has the greatest number of choices, and is the most highly paid segment in our society. This group also exhibits a pattern of migratory moves between jobs that just reemphasizes the importance of the social and the historical, as opposed to the purely economic.

I did a study of 40,000 scientists and engineers in which we obtained their records of migration in terms of their three previous job moves. We found, rather interestingly, after studying these data obtained from seven cities that these scientists and engineers moved in one-way, irreversible streams of flow, as if they were in rivers. Very few of our samples were found to go back upstream.

When we searched for something we could relate these flows to, we found they were very highly correlated with traditional migration patterns that are a hundred years old in the American scene. For example, we found that a man from New England would go to Tucson, Ariz., but would not go to Denver, Colo. I give you the Santa Fe Trail, and the Overland Route. Further, upon looking into the composition of the work force of specific companies we found that over 51 percent of the men who were currently in the work force had come "through a friend."

I raise these questions because if we are going to talk about policy, and about actions, I think we have to do it with some clearer understanding of the social and historical patterns that migration takes. Otherwise we will propose and we will take actions and people will continue to follow the same patterns that have been described this morning. Another point was made today about the migration patterns of the American public, which I think is very important. No matter how many jobs you bring to many of the smaller towns, the young people will go someplace else for adventure and excitement.

With the communication media we have today, television, movies, the newspapers, the magazines everyone has a window to every other part of life, and I do not think that they will respond in simple fashion to a massive placement of jobs. We will have to recognize the development of new life styles and of chronological changes in personal demands that might affect patterns for the future.

I would suggest that the young seek out one environment, perhaps a large city, the 35-year-old moves to the suburbs for his children, the 45-year-old moves to the central city to return to the conveniences and to be close to the job, while the 65-year-old goes to the "Happy Retirement Acres," which are being advertised and built all over the country.

This suggests the exciting prospect of the creation of a variety of social and economic concentrations that can be located throughout the country to provide us with a maximum of diversity as well as a maximum of opportunities and alternatives. I do not think we have thought enough of this possibility. Usually when we talk about 50 new cities all optimized, we do not talk about their potential diversity. I would like to raise another question which came out of Dr. Bishop's paper-when and where is "rural"? Is "rural" something printed in gothic letters that is a shanty and a sharecropper? The statistics presented today identified large numbers of people who live in what is considered a rural area and who work somewhere else. With the increase and the improvement-if it is improvement-of rapid transportation, and with better communications, we find that what is considered rural and what is considered nonrural begins to smudge around the edges. There is a pattern occurring in cities today where there seems to be a moving out from the center of the city to the limits of our communication and transportation systems. Consequently cities are now like doughnuts, with a rich and growing industrial complex around the rim connected by a freeway belt which allows you to avoid the central city forever. Where is the city? Is it in the center or is it in the rim? Are these two different entities? Are we talking only of political entities that may have no meaning if we are going to consider designs for the future, that are intended

to take care of problems now labeled as "rural" poverty and "urban" poverty.

I raise these few points only to strike a somewhat different note. For example, we are going to have to start thinking in terms of a multicareer society? I would suggest that everything that we learned to manage in the past, such as mass production and mass distribution will be automated, and that Shapero's first law will apply, "No matter how many problems you solve for man, he will take on an equal load." Thus we will seek out new problems. Today these are the problems that are the one of a kind, the problems that are nonroutine and nonspecifiable, the kind that use humans as humans, and not as semihumans or objects. Thus we are going to have to prepare people to think and live in a multicareer society with a life profile that takes man from one locale to another as his life style changes, and from one kind of job to another as our very dynamic economy phases one out and phases another in.

Senator HARRIS. Our next speaker is professor of agricultural economics here at Oklahoma State University, and a consultant to the National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber, Prof. Luther "Tweeten.

Biographical Sketch: Luther Tweeten

Professor of agricultural economics, Oklahoma State University; consultant: National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber, Harvard Development Advisory Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Agricultural and Economic Development; author of numerous publications largely on regional and national economic development and on public policy for agriculture.

STATEMENT OF LUTHER G. TWEETEN, PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

Professor Bishop has given a concise analysis of important changes in rural society which have implications for any effort to eradicate poverty. My comments largely supplement rather than conflict with his analysis. I do differ somewhat with him and the Rural Poverty Commission in what public policies are needed to alleviate poverty.

REVIEWING THE RECORD OF FARM ADJUSTMENTS

The worst is over of the farm-urban exodus, though much is yet to come. From 1929 to 1965, 80 million persons moved from U.S. farms. Many persons moved to farms, leaving a net outmigration from the farm of 36 million. Contrast this with an estimated 47 million persons who migrated to the United States from foreign shores from 1820 to 1960. Some 22 million returned to their homeland, leaving a net inflow of "only" 25 million foreigners into the United States.

This conference is three decades late for designing constructive policies to reduce the major social cost of the rural-urban exodus. Imagine if you will that we could keep our current data but move this assembly back in time to 1938; then what kinds of policies would we devise to reduce the social cost of the impending population shift?

NOTE. For data and sources of data in this paper, see "Rural Poverty," published by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station.