It is hard to conceive of any economic crisis, in any society, which can be blamed equally on all of its citizens. Except in the most primitive societies, citizens play different economic roles: some produce goods, some provide services, some provide investment capital, and others are unemployed. Some earn their livelihood by selling their labor; others live off profits; some do both; some do neither and barely survive at all.
Economic problems of this kind experienced by advanced, industrialized societies like our own arise invariably from imbalances among the components of economic life. Too much or too little is being produced, or consumed, or saved, or invested, or what have you. How much you are to "blame" for the economic mess depends first of all on where you fit in among these components and, second, on a determination of where the imbalances are.
All of this is obvious, or should be. It is also obvious that, despite the "let's-all-pull-together" rhetoric from Washington, any serious proposal for curing our economic ills must flow from a judgment as to who should stop doing what. Such a judgment has powerful political implications. President Nixon's judgment is in, and it should come as no surprise. Inherent in his new economic plan is the view that wage earners are the major culprit. They are the prime cause of inflation and must be made to bear the burdens of fighting it. There is no other possible interpretation of Mr. Nixon's so-called wage-price freeze.
Enforcing a wage freeze is not very difficult, as the President knows. The employer writes the checks, and he hardly needs prodding not to make them out for larger amounts. Moreover, millions of workers come under highly visible collective bargaining contracts which can be easily monitored. Many of these workers will be deprived of wage increases which they have already won - and on the alleged basis of which their employers have already put higher prices into effect.
While wages are effectively frozen, there is to be no effective machinery for enforcing the price freeze. Indeed, eggs, fruits and vegetables -- which every housewife must buy for her family -- are specifically exempt from the freeze. So is the price of land, a major factor in rising construction costs. Undoubtedly, the 10 percent tax on imports will also be passed onto the consumer. Thus, while your wages will be frozen, the costs of the things you must buy will continue to rise.
The class bias built into the President's new "game plan" -- the old one having failed dismally despite repeated promises of success - is even more dramatically highlighted by its effect on unearned income. Profits, stocks, capital gains, interest rates, and dividends are all specifically exempt from the freeze -- although the President did express the pious hope that dividends not be increased.
Had Mr. Nixon imposed controls on all forms of income, not just wages, he would have had the support of the labor movement, as AFL-CIO President George Meany has repeatedly made clear from the beginning (but which the New York Times editorialists have persistently ignored in their attacks on Mr. Meany). Instead, the President has once again chosen to make a scapegoat of working people, who make up the great bulk of our population, and he has therefore justly earned the vigorous opposition of the labor movement. Despite the editorial abuse which has been heaped on George Meany and the AFL-CIO, I am convinced that their resistance to Nixon's plan will mark this as one of the labor movement's finest hours.
A Lesson for Teachers
What does all this mean for teachers? Contradictory statements have come from the Office of Emergency Preparedness. There are a great many unanswered questions, particularly regarding contracts already negotiated and raises effective this school year which had been agreed to previously. We have taken the position that our agreements cannot be nullified, and we have informed the New York City Board of Education that we expect our contracts to be honored.
Our representatives in Washington are in constant consultation with government officials -- and there is considerable confusion among the interpreters of the President's policy. The United Federation of Teachers in New York and American Federation of Teachers nationally, in forceful statements, have made it clear that we do not accept the Nixon plan.
It must be said, on the President's behalf, that he is helping to educate teachers in the fundamental realities of economic life. Historically, teachers have tended to identify themselves as a group apart from other working people, by virtue of their education and professionalism. And, of course, teachers are in some respects different from other working people. But in economic terms they are at bottom wage earners, and in times of economic crisis the distinction between those who live by selling their labor and those who live off unearned income always comes to the fore.
What Mr. Nixon has reminded us of, once again, is that the interests of teachers are tied up with those of other working people, that we are not an elitist profession but a democratic one. We should be grateful for this reminder -- and I suspect that we shall have occasion to act according to the new awareness he has stimulated in us.