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