Secretary Reich and the Disintegrating Middle Class

IF these times are good, why do they seem so bad to me?'' is a question many Americans have been asking lately. We speak of ``the unemployment rate'' as 5.9 percent, for instance, but there are really many unemployment rates: 3 percent for the college-educated, 9 percent for high school graduates, and 12 percent for dropouts.

Labor Secretary Robert Reich has been an eloquent spokesman within the Clinton administration on the ``disintegrating middle class.'' A few years back, he wrote about the ``fortunate fifth'' -

the top quintile of the population that was making real economic progress as the bottom four-fifths were just holding their own. On a visit to the Monitor's offices the other day, Mr. Reich observed that the fortunate fifth has become the ``extremely fortunate 5 percent'' who get 47 percent of the national income, while the bottom 20 percent receives only 3.6 percent.

Recent years have seen a dramatic shift in favor of skilled workers as a result of new technologies, international trade pressures, and the decline of trade unions. ``All of this has conspired to make life harder for working families.''

Reich sees two silver linings, however: The new jobs being created are generally good high-skilled jobs. And many of these are accessible to those with only a year or two of post-secondary training. The kind of middle-class economic security that could be built in the 1950s on the basis of an unskilled job in a factory now can be built, Reich suggests, on the basis of a skilled technical job.

He describes a world where even coal mines are computerized but expresses concern that the labor force isn't building its skills base ``fast enough to save the middle class.''

Reich was in Boston along with Karen Nussbaum, director of the women's bureau at the Labor Department, to present findings of a study the department did called ``Working Women Count.'' The survey found that the nation's working women want, in a word, more: more pay and fairer pay, more elder care and child care.

Ms. Nussbaum noted that the study identified a streak of ``suppressed panic over just making ends meet.''

By March 15, the Labor Department is to present to President Clinton a program of recommendations for change based on the study. It will not be easy to come up with a program that makes a real difference at a time when America's corporate employers, especially its large ones, already feel they are being asked to serve as extended family, neighborhood support group, and national health service.

A company being asked to provide child care, for instance, may rightly point out that competitors in Hong Kong are being asked no such thing; how can it compete globally if it must baby-sit too?

But the continuing development of the nation's already diverse, if not fragmented, labor force cannot be allowed to be seen as a zero-sum game. The investment model is the most hopeful one to consider: Invest in the skills of your staff, and give them the benefits they really need, and the money spent will come back in productivity and morale gains.

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.