The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary this Friday night, two economists and four employment experts discuss the latest unemployment figures. We have a personal story from the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. David Gergen and Mark Shields analyze the week's politics, and we close with an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: The nation's unemployment rate inched down last month, but much of the improvement came from a temporary summer jobs program for teenagers. The Labor Department said the 7.6 percent rate was down only slightly from the eight-year high posted in June. Even with the youth program, 83,000 non-farm jobs were lost in August, the largest cut in nine months, and retail workers were hardest hit. Shortly after the report was announced, the Federal Reserve moved to lower short-term interest rates to stimulate the economy. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called today's unemployment report "an encouraging sign." Bill Clinton called it "more bad news for the economy." He spoke just outside Little Rock, Arkansas.

BILL CLINTON: Today the unemployment figures were announced and the unemployment rate in America dropped a tenth of a point. In Arkansas, it dropped .8 point. But underneath that, you see, there was an actual reduction, a reduction of 167,000 people employed in the private sector. If it weren't for the summer jobs program in this country, unemployment would have gone up again this last month.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush said today he was working to create more jobs at a campaign appearance in Fredericksburg, Virginia. He signed new legislation aimed at small businesses. He said they were the key to job growth at a time when many large companies were cutting back.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We've come here to Fredericksburg to sign a new piece of legislation typical of us, that Washington has named the Small Business Credit and Business Opportunity Enhancement Act." But it's going to loosen up credit even more for deserving small businesses and not only does it increase the levels of SBA loans; it creates new ways of bringing investment to small business owners and it reaches out to women and minority entrepreneurs who want to get started. And I've always believed that the most -- the best economic program is a job. And this bill gives more Americans the tools to create a job.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on unemployment and the economy right after this News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: Some 12,000 additional troops began arriving in Southern Florida today to help relief efforts. One of their main tasks will be going door-to-door to convince people to leave unsafe homes and go to one of the military tent cities. People have been going to the relief centers for food and other supplies, but they've been reluctant to stay for fear their damaged homes will be looted. We'll have more on that story later in the program.

MR. LEHRER: The Italian relief plane which crashed yesterday in Bosnia may have been shot down. That was the word today from Italian officials investigating why the plane crashed in the mountains Southwest of Sarajevo. Two eye witnesses said they saw missiles fired at the plane. The U.N. suspended relief flights to Sarajevo pending further investigation. Also today, a United Nations relief convoy carrying 100 tons of food and medical supplies arrived safely in the besieged town of Gorazde. David Rose of Independent Television News traveled with a convoy. Here is his report.

DAVID ROSE, ITN: The 50-mile journey from Sarajevo to Gorazde should take two hours. It was to take many hours longer. Serb militias control almost the whole route. They forced the convoy to halt at Rogaticha, the last large town before Gorazde, and a major confrontation developed. These local Serb fighters are highly suspicious of this U.N. convoy. They say that a previous convoy about a month ago brought in weapons and ammunition, as well as food and medicine for the Muslims in Gorazde. And the local commander showed me this mortar thing was a type of weapon he said the Muslims did not have before that convoy but started using immediately after it had left. The U.N. commander says such a thing is impossible. They don't carry weapons.

SPOKESMAN: [speaking through interpreter] I'm very, very angry about it. We have supplied humanitarian aid around the world. We are not going to risk our reputation for Gorazde.

MR. ROSE: Eventually, the convoy reached Gorazde, which has been under siege for five months. The Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadyczk, said at the weekend he'd ended the siege when he pulled Serb forces back. Bodies still lie around the town. Many Serb women and children were apparently massacred as they tried to leave when Muslims took over the surrounding area. The evacuation turned into a route and the Muslims are now in complete control of Gorazde. Medical supplies are desperately needed here. Doctors have been operating on the wounded without the most basic drugs.

MR. LEHRER: The U.N. Commissioner for Refugees made an appeal today for more medicine and food for Bosnia. She told an international conference in Geneva more than $400 million in aid will be needed. The United States said it would pledge $40 million in new assistance. There were at least three more incidents of right wing violence in Germany last night. They were aimed at foreigners seeking asylum in Germany. The attacks included the firebombing of homes for ethnic Germans who recently immigrated from Eastern Europe. In another incident, police fought with right wing extremists who threw rocks as they tried to storm a refugee center near the Polish border.

MR. MacNeil: The United States said today it will expand its airlift of food to the East African nation of Somalia. As many as a million and a half people are threatened with starvation in that country, which has been racked by drought and ethnic warfare. The U.S. will now deliver food to the remote town of Bidoa. Tens of thousands of people are being cared for there, but hundreds continued to die each day, despite efforts by the United Nations and Red Cross. U.S. military planes carrying 29 tons of food each day will join that effort starting tomorrow. That's it for our news summary. Just ahead, the hunt for work, one of Andrew's victims, Gergen & Shields, and Woody and Mia. FOCUS - JOB HUNT

MR. MacNeil: We turn first tonight to what is the story of the day and what is possibly the story of the 1992 election, jobs. The unemployment rate for August dipped to 7.6 percent, after an eight- year high in June. Is this slight summer improvement the start of a hiring trend? We'll hear the views of economists and people in the job recruiting and counseling business. First, the economists. Philip Braverman is chief economist at DKB Securities, the American subsidiary of the Daiichi Kangel Bank of Japan. David Bostian is chief economist and investment strategist at Hertzog, Heina and Gadul, a New York investment firm. Mr. Braverman, is today's drop in the unemployment rate a hopeful sign for the economy?

MR. BRAVERMAN: No. I'm afraid not. As far as I'm concerned, we remain in recession and the problem with non-farm payrolls, which continue to decline, I think is a reflection of this.

MR. MacNeil: Non-farm payrolls.

MR. BRAVERMAN: Right.

MR. MacNeil: That is the 83,000 figure --

MR. BRAVERMAN: Right.

MR. MacNeil: -- which the Labor Department reported today was lost.

MR. BRAVERMAN: And if we adjust for the hundred thousand summer job program which if not for that, we would have had a one hundred and eighty-three thousand decline, it's clear that we just are not creating jobs.

MR. MacNeil: Do you agree with that, Mr. Bostian, we're not creating jobs?

MR. BOSTIAN: Well, I think clearly the situation leaves a lot to be desired. The decline of a tenth of 1 percent in the unemployment rate was encouraging. One of the things that I think needs to be pointed out, even though this minus 83,000 number was dismal, is that the Labor Department having over counted start-ups and job creation in the 1989 period has become very conservative and is making no assumptions for new job creation. No one can tell exactly what is there, but I think the real figures are somewhat more optimistic than what were reported today.

MR. MacNeil: Why -- I don't understand why they wouldn't be making allowance for new job creation. If people are being employed, wouldn't that count, for instance, against those 83,000 job losses in the non-farm employment sector? Why wouldn't they be counted?

MR. BOSTIAN: Well, because you have to make assumptions. They don't literally go out and count each person. They have to do surveying. Back in 1988 and '89, they were assuming new corporate start-ups, new people being put on payrolls, and that, of course, created personal income, which was shown to be phantom. I think there was a perception that perhaps this has some political flavor to it inorder to be very conservative. They went to the other extreme. So I say when you see a minus 83,000 decline, maybe the real figure was minus 50,000, still bad, but not as bad as the figures show.

MR. MacNeil: Not as bad -- the situation isn't as dismal as they show, Mr. Braverman?

MR. BRAVERMAN: I think it's worse.

MR. MacNeil: It's worse. Why?

MR. BRAVERMAN: Because we just are not creating jobs as fast as the growth of the labor force. Over the last year, non-farm payrolls rose only 250,000. And we added 2.4 million people to the labor force. We have literally 17 1/2 million people in this country by official statistic count who are looking for full-time employment and can't find them; 9.7 million technically unemployed. An additional 1.1 million people who are so discouraged by the absence of job opportunities that they are called discouraged workers and have left the labor force. In addition, we have roughly 6 1/2 million people who can't find a full-time job even though they've tried hard and as a result, have settled for part-time work, usually working half a work week, 20 hours or less, at reduced pay. And I think there are -- an additional problem -- many people who are under employed as a result of having lost their jobs are looking for a business opportunity and that call themselves consultants or self-employed individuals, and as a result, are working fewer hours at lower pay. And we count all of these people as if they were fully employed. And many of them are grossly under employed, so it's not really a problem of statistics. It's a problem of counting people who are in distress, economist and financial distress, as if they had a full-time job. The situation is worse.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bostian, if you think the situation is better than the figures suggest, if only marginally better, do you agree with President Bush, who says this economy is poised for an important recovery? Do you believe that?

MR. BOSTIAN: Yes, I do believe it, not necessarily because President Bush said it, and obviously, the recovery may still be a bit slower than the President would like to see. I'm forecasting 4 percent real GDP growth next year, if that happens, even though there are secular background forces like winding down of defense, structural layoffs to increase productivity and international competitiveness. This will make the improvement of the job outlook slower. But I think by next year you will see the unemployment rate down substantially and payroll job gains much stronger than recently.

MR. MacNeil: When next year?

MR. BOSTIAN: Well, I would --

MR. MacNeil: A lot of people must be asking themselves that and especially people who watch the political situation must be asking themselves.

MR. BOSTIAN: Trying to pinpoint it to the exact quarter is difficult, but if I had to guess, I would say by the first quarter. Ironically, even the clean-up from the hurricane in Florida will create additional job growth and additional economist activity.

MR. MacNeil: Do you see growth of that kind coming next year? Do you see the economy poised for a big recovery?

MR. BRAVERMAN: No. In fact, I see the unemployment rate rising. I think we have, in effect, a growth recession. This is a technical term, and to describe an economy that does not create jobs as rapidly as we create entrance into the labor force, and as a result, we continue to have a deficiency of job creation. The unemployment rate I think will be rising. In September, I expect it to be back up to 7.8 or above. And I expect the trend to continue to 8 percent and above through the end of this year and into next year. We just do not have any major forward momentum in this economy. I grant that it's a positive, in effect, that we do have reconstruction as a result of Hurricane Andrew, but that's a slim reed to rest an entire economy on. I think we will see real GDP growth of 1 1/2 percent or less for quarters and quarters to come.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bostian, there were some other figures released this week. Yesterday, there were statistics showing a growth of poverty back to the largest number since 1964, and also lower purchasing power for the average American. Fit those two statistics into your overall view of the economy and where it's going.

MR. BOSTIAN: Well, I think the poverty figure which shows 14.2 percent of the population or at least households under the poverty level is misstated. If you look at the value of food stamps, Medicaid, other types of cash payments to people in those straits, it probably -- and put value on them -- it probably brings the poverty rate down to only around 11 percent, as opposed to 14. Still, that's a sad situation and requires a recovering economy to make it improve. The second part of your question in terms of real disposable income might have implications for the election. It certainly is something that's suppressing consumer confidence. But as the economy starts to grow, even if you have modest gains in consumer income, if inflation is still quiescent, which I expect it to be, the purchasing power of those gains in income will be reasonably encouraging. So I think both trends are going to be taking a turn for the better, especially in '94.

MR. MacNeil: How do you see the poverty in purchasing power figures?

MR. BRAVERMAN: I see the situation as dismal for a decade ahead. We have a structural problem. We have overburdened ourselves in every conceivable sector with debt. And whether it's consumers that are going bankrupt, or in default, or facing foreclosure, or those who have fewer good job opportunities, or have fallen below the poverty line, we have a tremendous amount of pessimism and a loss of confidence. We have businessmen struggling to reduce their indebtedness. We have governments, state, local and federal, all in the same problem, all facing the same contraction. And as a result, every sector of the U.S. economy is in a process of contraction or slow growth, at best. And out of that, you do not get the normal, typical recovery that we have had in the post World War II period. You have the sluggish structural problems that we are struggling with and probably will continue to struggle with for years to come.

MR. MacNeil: All right. Bearing in mind what our two economists say, with very different views of things, we're joined now by four people whose job it is to track changes in the job market. Career development consultant Cinda Cartee is hired by companies to counsel their laid-off workers. Her company is called C&L Management Group. And she joins us tonight from Stamford, Connecticut. Mitchell Fromstein is chief executive officer of Manpower, Incorporated, a temporary help firm. His company conducts quarterly surveys of 15,000 businesses on their hiring and firing plans. He joins us from Milwaukee. Jim Tusler runs a program in Washington State for the Washington Labor Council, part of the AFL- CIO. He advises local unions on how to respond to plant closings. And he joins us from Seattle. And Harold Johnson is managing director of Norman Broadbent, an international executive search firm. Ms. Cartee, in Stamford, are there any signs of employment picking up where you sit?

MS. CARTEE: I really have not seen that kind of signal, particularly in the Northeastern corridor. I particularly agree with the comment that there is real structural change going on here. I see a change in the nature of work and the way people are working. There are more and more people who may be counted as employed, but in reality, are working part-time, or as contractors, or clearly would fall in the under employed category.

MR. MacNeil: Looking at the companies you deal with in -- either people laid off or looking for work, are companies in your area hiring or laying people off?

MS. CARTEE: There continues to be a movement to down size restructure, lay off people. While there was a very short spurt I think of employment reported by many out placement firms in May, we continue to see more and more people coming into the work place as job seekers.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. And you're dealing mostly with white collar people or so-called "pink collar" people, is that right, today?

MS. CARTEE: That would pretty much accurately describe the type of people I work with. They are professionals, technicians, administrators, educated people who have experience in the work force, including senior level management.

MR. MacNeil: I remember when we talked to you a couple of years ago, when you were counseling people, one of the things you measured was how long it took people to find a job when they were laid off. How long does it take, on average, now, and has there been any change in that?

MS. CARTEE: Well, on average, if you looked at those people looking for work without support services, without support of a company or out placement, it probably is going a year to two years. Individuals who are fortunate enough to have the services and support of their former employers. Up to 65 percent of those people might find jobs within a year, but that still leaves a great number of people who are conducting a job search over a very long period of time.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Tusler in Seattle, you deal with skilled blue collar workers, male and female for the most part. Do you see an improvement in the job picture in the Northwest?

MR. TUSLER: No, we don't, Robert. We're deeply concerned with what's going on with the economy in the Northwest. Traditionally, Peugeot Sound, Seattle area has been a strong employment generator, but I think it's better characterized, Washington State's economy is kind of like swiss cheese. We have some areas of strong job growth, but most of our rural areas of the state and certainly our forest industry, our rural dependent communities are really at depression levels. Within the last four months, now we're seeing small and incremental layoffs right in the Peugeot Sound Basin with the Boeing Corporation and we're deeply concerned with what's coming down the road for our members and workers in general.

MR. MacNeil: Is there anything positive in your part of the country? Is anybody hiring?

MR. TUSLER: In numbers, no, there is not. The people we represent really represents more than just the blue collar. Really the bastion of security has been our state of financial services, banking and retail. We've just gone through the largest banking merger in history in Washington State and thousands of those people are now out of work. And we've lost a very large retail chain store in Western Washington. It's a new type of person onto the job market. Things -- I would add that it is not a job in itself and not to rely exactly on the unemployment statistics. What we're seeing is when people are laid off, they lose a $14 an hour job and they're forced to take a 7. There is a great deal of economic impact with those two jobs.

MR. MacNeil: Thank you. Mr. Fromstein in Milwaukee, from the survey you do of 15,000 firms, do you see an improvement this summer in the job situation?

MR. FROMSTEIN: Well, we saw an improvement beginning in -- at the beginning of the year and running through the first three quarters of the year. For the fourth quarter, there seems to be an absence of resurgence. It really isn't showing itself to a falling down precipitously, but there is less than we would have wanted to see in terms of the outlook for the fourth quarter.

MR. MacNeil: What kind of firms are hiring? Who is actually hiring people in your survey?

MR. FROMSTEIN: Well, it's pretty much across-the-board. It's a question of how many of them are doing the hiring. But in general, and I think the comment that was shown -- the President's comment earlier in the broadcast -- it's the medium size and smaller companies that are doing a majority of the hiring, that's not unusual. That usually happens in a recovery period, while the large companies are still restructuring, and perhaps even finishing a down sizing effort.

MR. MacNeil: In your survey, are a significant number of firms still laying people off?

MR. FROMSTEIN: Well, I think significant is a relative term. It's not a dangerously high number, but, again, we would like to have seen it be a little bit, a little bit lower than it is now.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Johnson, what's the picture for jobs for executives?

MR. JOHNSON: Unfortunately, it's not much different than what we've already heard described. Our business has always been a pretty good predictor of returning confidence, i.e., as companies feel that things are getting better, they've retained companies like ours to recruit individuals to lead that, that coming out process. Unfortunately, our business is still pretty much recruiting replacements for people departing for natural reasons and so on. There's not much going on that would imply returning confidence.

MR. MacNeil: I'm going to start with you and go round the others and ask them, what is holding companies back from hiring if -- if there is technically a recovery, even though it's very slow, and although there's been a lot of restructuring and everybody's supposed to be leaner and meaner, and there's a recovery potentially out there, why aren't they hiring people and getting ready for it?

MR. JOHNSON: I think it's -- it really, it gets down to confidence. And I don't know what it takes to get their confidence back. Our clients are the senior most executives in some of the major companies in the United States. We talk a lot about things that they'd like to do, are planning to do, if things just get a little better, can you be ready to help us, but --

MR. MacNeil: What kinds of things do they say to you when you say, hey, I've got some really good people here, can't you use them, and why do they -- what do they say why they can't?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, we start on the other end of the spectrum. We're retained by companies as opposed to --

MR. MacNeil: Oh, I see.

MR. JOHNSON: -- the other side. So they're willing to talk to us about being ready; we're about ready to come to you and retain you to do this search. But, unfortunately, getting them to pull the trigger is difficult.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Fromstein, does your survey tell you why companies are not hiring, why they are hesitant to hire? You said earlier it's typical that small companies do and big ones wait. Why -- what are they waiting for?

MR. FROMSTEIN: No, I don't -- I didn't mean to say that the big ones are waiting.

MR. MacNeil: Oh.

MR. FROMSTEIN: I think the very large companies have gone through a restructuring that was only partially related to the recession and part of it was related to global competitiveness and all the other corporate problems that we've been seeing. Some of it's really related to over hiring in the late eighties, and that's being still now, being down sized to try to make it more, more responsive to the needs. I would say that while we don't ask people why you're not hiring, there is a sense in the people that we talk to that there's an uncertainty out there. There's an election coming up. We are coming out of a recession slowly. And those two things together I think create what we would call a "wait and see" attitude. At the same time, we sense that business is improving, economic activity is taking place, and ultimately, this should really show itself in increased hiring. I think that the decision making is the thing that's been slowed down.

MR. MacNeil: Ms. Cartee, Cinda Cartee, why do you think companies are not rehiring? What's holding people back?

MS. CARTEE: I really think it has to do with the structural change in not only the way people are working today, but the structures of organization. I see more and more organizations, former large companies or large organizations, hiring people as out source contractors. In other words, they are hiring people on a contract basis. Jobs that were formerly performed inside the corporate sector as support mechanisms will no longer be performed in that capacity again. They will continue to hire people from the outside more or less like a "just in time" talent.

MR. MacNeil: And that means they don't have to pay them the full range of benefits that you would pay a permanent staff member.

MS. CARTEE: That is absolutely true. It brings the full range of competitive factors to bear on the person marketing their own talent.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Johnson, you were nodding your head to that.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think one of the things that we've seen is a whole change in the structure of middle management. There have been thousands and thousands, millions of those jobs wiped out, that will never come back. In addition to the economic problems, which I think are real, and the chance to save benefit costs and to save wages and so on, this was a wrenching decision for a lot of management. A lot of management didn't like to have to do that, and while a big -- the guy at the top could decide they're going to lay off 20,000 people, the fellow who ultimately had to lay off three or four or five found it a very difficult thing to do. And I don't think those jobs are ever coming back into the American economy. Now, if you look at something like --

MR. MacNeil: Who's going to do the work then?

MR. JOHNSON: The jobs are broadening, much broader. People are working harder, longer hours, and a lot of work just plain isn't getting done. And that's part of the service problem that you see around.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Tusler, what's your -- what kind of explanation do you have for why the people you would look normally in the Northwest to be -- to be providing jobs aren't doing it? What's holding them back?

MR. TUSLER: You look to the traditional mechanisms and people say the consumer is going to bring us out of this recession. Why isn't the consumer buying? The people I represent have lost purchasing power for the last 12 years. I am very hesitant to think that working men and women in this country in what they have suffered in recent times are really capable of pulling us out of this recession. It's -- it's a tough road to be a wage worker in this economy and people are hunkered down and going to stay low.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Bostian, hearing these people from around the country, does it make you any less optimistic about the --

MR. BOSTIAN: No. I think some balancing comments have to be put in here. Clearly there are structural problems, and I think those have been articulated quite well tonight. One thing which hasn't been mentioned is that I think a lot of consumers, as well as corporations, have been using a lot of their cash flow to pay down high interest, and in the case of consumers non-deductible interest rate debt. That's a positive for the future. It will bring purchasing power into effect. I also think, although this is very difficult to quantify, that the general negative tone that exists in the political campaign as both parties juxtaposition with one another seems to bring out a lot of the negatives and not highlight the positives. So this is why I believe that this year has been sort of a wash in terms of a normal economic recovery and that once we pass the election and move into next year, the whole job situation will improve. It will improve more slowly than in past recoveries but it will improve in a way that we can feel.

MR. MacNeil: So you think the election in a way is responsible, do you, for --

MR. BOSTIAN: In part, in part.

MR. MacNeil: Just spell that out a little bit. Apart from the negative rhetoric, why else would the election be actually holding up, if it is, holding up recovery?

MR. BOSTIAN: Well, good question. Two examples: Let's say that you were a consumer and thinking about purchasing a house or condominium and you keep hearing ever so often on TV or reading in the papers that there's going to be a $5,000 credit for first-time home buyers and you say, is it coming, is it not coming, I'm going to wait and see. If you are a businessman and you're thinking about building a new plant or bringing in high productivity equipment, is there going to be a tax credit, what's going to be the nature of it, is it going to get better, is it going to get worse, and the result is that you tend to have a lot of economic decisions put on "hold" until you can see what the landscape is going to look like, which is something that comes after the election.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Braverman, do you think there's something in that, that uncertainty about the election, or provided by the election is actually holding back the recovery?

MR. BRAVERMAN: No. I think it's holding back more disastrous times to come, because, unfortunately, there is a rash of bankruptcies that is going to be imposed on the FDIC probably starting in December, and that's the banks and thrifts that are on the FDIC's troubled institutions list. And there are probably base closings and cutbacks in defense that are also being delayed until after the election. So I think there's a degree of caution that's suitable, given a recognition that after the election some of these tougher decisions will be made, and as a consequence, there's going to be more difficult times ahead in those particular areas. Plus, we continue to have I think a global recession. Germany looks like it's moving toward recession and the rest of the world continues to struggle either to emerge or to at least avoid getting a worsening recession. That keeps the export picture at, at low ebb, and that is something that has been an improving factor last year and is sort of neutral to declining this year and may turn negative as Germany, one of our major trading partners, and Japan, moves toward a more definitive recession.

MR. MacNeil: Okay. We have to leave it there. Thank you all, gentlemen, and Ms. Cartee for joining us. Jim. UPDATE - ONE VICTIM'S STORY

MR. LEHRER: Next, the economic damage left behind by Hurricane Andrew. Correspondent Tom Bearden reports on one of the farm workers who picked the crops in South Florida.

MR. BEARDEN: The once lush avocado orchards have been reduced to kindling. The last fruit picked before the storm lies rotting. The packing plants that box the harvest for shipment are just as shredded as the trees. The South Florida agricultural industry has been badly damaged. Recovery may take many years. That fact poses some troubling questions for the people who could least afford Hurricane Andrew's destruction, migrant farm workers. This used to be a trailer park in a migrant worker's camp West of Florida City. Martha Posada, her husband and three children rode out part of the storm in one of them, then sought refuge in a neighbor's house. There wasn't much left the next morning.

MARTHA POSADA: We came in to see what -- our belongings were gone. Everything was gone, you know. People -- you know, the people's stuff, but everything was ruined.

MR. BEARDEN: Where was your trailer?

MARTHA POSADA: Over there where there that toilet is.

MR. BEARDEN: That's all that's left?

MARTHA POSADA: That's all that's left and a little bit of clothes is there but it ain't no good no more. I washed it, you know, we tried to wash the clothes, but all the fiberglass was stuck in there. We couldn't wear the clothes. We tried to wear some, but, you know, blisters come on the skin, so forget it, you know.

MR. BEARDEN: The Posadas and two other families are still living in the neighbor's house.

MARTHA POSADA: Twenty people is in there, okay, including babies, toddlers, and a dog, you know, and teenagers. We're all crowded there, you know. Some sleep in the living room, one in some of the rooms, and we have to sleep on the floor. We have no beds. They had told us that they were going to bring some beds for us. They never showed up again, but --

MR. BEARDEN: How do you survive with 20 people in a place that small?

MARTHA POSADA: There is no place. We've got to survive, you know. How we're managing, I don't know. I just close my eyes and wake up the next day. Praise the Lord we're fine and, you know, we're doing great. That's a room that's over there. There is one sick baby in there.

MR. BEARDEN: What's wrong with her?

MARTHA POSADA: She's got -- she's been running fever since yesterday. She's got some infection.

MR. BEARDEN: How high a fever?

MARTHA POSADA: Yesterday she was 90 -- 99. It's been coming down but it goes up and down, you know. This is one of the other rooms where the other couple is staying.

MR. BEARDEN: This is the ceiling that collapsed?

MARTHA POSADA: Yes, and the windows.

MR. BEARDEN: The windows blew out too?

MARTHA POSADA: Yes. And like I say, you know, 20 people in here, kind of crowded, but, you know, where can we go?

MR. BEARDEN: You can't move --

MARTHA POSADA: Yeah. At least we have a roof, you know, but if it starts raining more and they don't put that good enough, we're not going to have no roof no more.

MR. BEARDEN: Martha seems remarkably cheerful, even though her family faces agonizing uncertainties about what the future may hold.

MARTHA POSADA: People come in and bring us hot food, you know, so we don't haveto worry about that much. What we worry about is where we're gonna live later on, you know.

MR. BEARDEN: Where are you going to live later on?

MARTHA POSADA: Yeah. Because right now we're there, you know, but we don't know if they're gonna kick us out till we build our houses or what they're going to do, close the camp or what. We also worry about why, what's going to happen to our deposit on the trailers, you know. Is that -- you know -- is that they're not going to give it to us, what are we going to do? $50 to -- you know, it's not much for some people, but to us it's a lot, because we come in we had to pay, you know, $80 on electricity, $90 on, you know, on water, to get, put in a deposit, you do it for the trailer to get in, you have to fight for the rent. We have to put that money down.

MR. BEARDEN: And after putting it, you still have no place to live right now?

MARTHA POSADA: Yeah. We don't have no place to -- you know -- to go and we don't know what the landlord's gonna do about it, you know, even though it's not our fault. It's not his fault. You know, but nature is nature.

MR. BEARDEN: In normal times the Posada family spends part of the year in Texas, following the harvest. One of the biggest questions is whether there's going to be any work in Florida to bring in badly needed cash.

MARTHA POSADA: Well, I guess if it's going to have jobs, you know, cleaning some doors or whatever, because they've been asking for help, you know, jobs and that, but I -- I have no idea -- maybe farm workers don't have -- not the farmers -- the farmers, okay, don't have the equipment, because everything was destroyed too for them.

MR. BEARDEN: So there is uncertainty as to whether there's going to be some work to do?

MARTHA POSADA: Yes.

MR. BEARDEN: Are you worried?

MARTHA POSADA: I'm worried because, you know, my husband has got to work, you know. Otherwise, how are we going to survive later on after the help is gone? Who's gonna help us? How are we going to work, you know. And right now, we're in the middle of either going back to Texas or staying here. We don't know. If we go back to Texas, we have no money to go. We got to, you know, have everything ready. We have to have money to buy, you know, be putting gas in the car and buying food and to get there we have to find a place to rent. How are we going to manage that? We don't know yet.

MR. BEARDEN: So at least in the short-term you have enough help to get along, but you're worried about what's going to happen months, two months from now, three months from now?

MARTHA POSADA: Yes, because, you know, that's what we worry -- we worry about more, about the kids, you know, our children, you know, and the school starts one day, you know. We have to still buy more clothes or buy clothes for the kids, you know. And everything is gone, everything.

MR. BEARDEN: Martha's story isn't unique. Other people in the camp are in the same situation and are also getting help from their neighbors.

SPOKESMAN: They live with no houses. They ain't got no roofs over their heads. We've got to make a room for them today in here.

MR. BEARDEN: Virtually the whole community pitched in to move donated supplies into the tent to make room for people to live in a hastily repaired community center. They're too busy to worry about those nagging questions about the future. It's all they can do right now to get through each day.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Gergen & Shields, and an essay on Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. FOCUS - '92 - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: And now someFriday night political analysis from Gergen & Shields, David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, and syndicated columnist Mark Shields. David, are there political aftermath from -- aftermaths from today's unemployment figures?

MR. GERGEN: There are, indeed, Jim. And I think they're almost important to the President right now as Florida has been, this hurricane in Florida. You know, you can debate the figures all you want, but the fact is the Federal Reserve eased today and they only lowered interest rates because they take these figures as bad news. That means that the economy's going to continue to be a drag on George Bush.

MR. LEHRER: So whatever else anybody else may say about it, the Federal Reserve sees that as bad?

MR. GERGEN: That's -- well, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates; the stock market went down; and the dollar dropped, all in reaction to those unemployment numbers and the connections between them. Now, I think given that, that the economy's going to continue to be a drag. It is the overwhelming issue in the election, and that President Bush can't seem to get the focus changed or anything else and keep it anywhere else. He tried family values. That didn't seem to work. He's tried various attacks on Clinton. That doesn't seem to work. I think there's another danger here, Jim, that's lurking. It's possible, it's possible that we could have a third dip in the economy, and I think if it goes down again, that the Republicans can kiss their hopes good-bye. You know, three dips and they're out.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: There's only three issues in this campaign, Jim; the economy, the economy, and the economy.

MR. LEHRER: I knew you were going to say that.

MR. SHIELDS: And every day -- but it is a formula for keeping score of this campaign. Every day that the economy is the principal subject under discussion is a good day for Bill Clinton, and it's a bad day for George Bush. When the economy isn't -- something like the hurricane intervenes -- it isn't necessarily a good day for George Bush or it can be a wash, it might be, but that's the problem and David, David is right. I mean, it is not working and it takes about a three-months turnaround before people's perceptions change. So it's gone. The time is gone. The time is past when encouraging news is going to change the way people feel about it.

MR. LEHRER: That's just what some folks were telling Robin just now, that much of this is in the head as it is in the reality and they've got to wait. They want to wait and see how things are going and there's this uncertainty.

MR. GERGEN: And I think this is beginning to point out what has been the real missed opportunity of the Republican Convention in the speech, and that is, had the President come forward with a serious plan for the economy, he could weather these kind of ups and downs and the bad number, because he would have some, people would have some sense he has a way out of the ditch. But right there you remember he presented what was, you know, a mish mash of an economic program in the convention speech and then he came out of the convention. He started talking about everything else but the economy. He had no thematic way to deal with the economy and I think now he's paying a price for it as these numbers come out.

MR. LEHRER: Now, Mark, what the President has been doing is going hither and yon dispensing favors to the farmers, to the aircraft industry, et cetera. Is that going to work?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it may work but it's reflective of something I think really remarkable about this election year, unlike anything from the past quarter century, and that is for the first time the Republicans are running the presidential campaign on a non-national basis. Republicans have always wanted to nationalize campaigns, have it on national defense, on taxes, the economy. Now, George Bush is trying to -- is trying to cherry pick states. He's going to Michigan and talking about fuel efficiency standards, going to the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, gay rights in the bible belt, F-16's at Ft. Worth. He keeps three thousand people at work. And it's -- it's -- first of all, it contributes to the cynicism that people have about politics, and I think in a strange way it compromises George Bush. Every constituent does it to some degree or another.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. SHIELDS: But it compromises George Bush's, the sense of George Bush as this international leader, because the criticism that's attending, especially the wheat deal in South Dakota, comes from Australians, our European trading partners, saying, wait a minute, what are you doing, we're all set to go in this big trade agreement that involved minimizing, eliminating subsidies of farmers and agriculture, and I just -- I don't think it does work. I think he looks frenzied and I think he looks frenetic.

MR. LEHRER: David.

MR. GERGEN: Well, again, every President in modern times has done it. It goes all the way back to FDR. Democrats, Republicans do it. And frankly, it seems to work pretty well in good times when you're about to get elected anyway. It does not work particularly well in bad times. You know, President Ford tried in '76 --

MR. LEHRER: Why not? Why not?

MR. GERGEN: -- and Carter tried it in '80. It didn't work for either one.

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

MR. GERGEN: I think a lot of people sort of pocketed the gains and said, the SOB should have done this a long time ago. You know, I think --

MR. LEHRER: People are not as dumb as they --

MR. GERGEN: Well, they like to clap and say, thank you very much, and then they go on and vote, and vote their pocket books anyway, so I think Mark is right. I think there is a lot of cynicism and frankly I was a little surprised to see the White House pack so many of these announcements into such a short time frame.

MR. LEHRER: To do what they did.

MR. GERGEN: That's right. And I think it looked heavy-handed. If it had been done from the Rose Garden and spaced out, it -- the perception of it would have been a little different.

MR. SHIELDS: That's why I say frenzied. The other thing is in a tactical way it was a mistake for Bush. Some of us had already written a few of those, I think it was sort of a movement in the press, and the press does move -- let's be honest about it -- oftentimes as a unit -- toward Bill Clinton, of writing about Bill Clinton as a guy who pandered, who was coddling constituencies, who, himself, was straddling the issues, and, you know, he goes in to the old folks and gives them a pitch and he goes to the Legion last week and gives them a pitch, and is trimming his remarks to them, and what George Bush does is totally eclipse it. He blows that story out of the water by taking pandering to a new level, or --

MR. GERGEN: I think they're pretty equal in that. I think Clinton has pandered a lot this week too. I mean, let's face it. But I want to -- and I think neither candidate has been exactly a profile in courage this week. I mean, we have moved from the state of the campaign which was basically negative in character, when they're attacking each other. Now we've moved to amanipulative stage when both candidates, as Mark would say, are trying to massage the erogenous zones of the voters. And, you know, I think that's exactly what's been going on and I think a lot of people are too smart and see through it. But there's something that Mark said that was quite interesting about the state strategy, Jim, something that's been -- that's now emerged that's very different about this election, and I think what we've seen in the past, and that is for the first time since 1976, the Republican base, that is the sunbelt, it's in trouble for the Republicans, and that George Bush is being forced to play defense on his own base. The critical states, Texas, California, and Florida, are all up for grabs, and, indeed, California may be gone for Republicans, so that the -- this is a difficult season. I mean, Bill Clinton really does have the upper hand right now when you look at it geographically, and I think it's forced the President to start looking for ways, what can I give in largess to Texas to bring Texas back into the fold. He's -- most of the time --

MR. LEHRER: Well, you would think, my goodness, why does he have to do -- even have to worry about Texas.

MR. GERGEN: That's right. So he's been using this largess very interestingly in his base states very largely.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Mark, speaking of Clinton, and you mentioned the Legion, Bill Clinton's draft problems came up again this week, the Los Angeles Times story that his uncle had tried to get him a slot in the Naval Reserve. The governor said, Gov. Clinton said, well, he didn't know what was going on. So, is it going to hurt him? Is that issue still alive, in other words?

MR. SHIELDS: It is alive. I mean, it's alive for this reason, Jim, that quite bluntly, the record is replete with contradictions and corrections that Bill Clinton has made over the past year and a half, I mean, from -- he didn't have a deferment until he did - - the Ingan induction notice, he said in December to the Washington Post, too in April, oh, yes, he did get an induction notice, in fact, there was a ceremony, a mock wake that was held for him in Oxford at his room with candles and they sat up in an all night vigil -- so -- as reported by Howard Feinman of Newsweek. So it's - - that's the problem. What's interesting is it works against him not as a national security issue, because just as the New Deal sowed the seeds of its own downfall by creating this prosperous middle class more concerned with property tax rates than they were with minimum wages, as they had been at one time, so too did George Bush and Ronald Reagan, presiding over the end of the Cold War -- as it was pointed out by Harrison Hickman, the Democratic strategist, and I give him credit for it, pointed out that it's diminished the importance of the commander in chief, not totally. I mean, it's still an important job qualification, but it isn't the guy on the thumb. He's not dealing with this evil empire anymore. If, in fact, Bill Clinton had these problems in 1988, I'd say he'd be knocked out of the box right now. It is still a problem and it's a character problem. It'll be with us for the remainder of the campaign in one form or another.

MR. LEHRER: David.

MR. GERGEN: I absolutely agree with everything Mark said. If the Cold War were still on, this would be almost a total disqualification, but I think since the Cold War's over, people care so much more about the economy now and the deficits that I think he's -- while voters are going to be uneasy about, they still prefer that so far to a candidate they can't seem to see getting the economy rolling.

MR. LEHRER: So the issue is more for him a slick issue rather than -- in other words, that he's shaded the -- shaded what his responses were more than what he actually did or didn't do?

MR. GERGEN: Yes. And it could also leave him vulnerable, Jim, if something else comes up later in the campaign which goes to character or honesty or anything like that. Then it will really trigger. Then it would -- yes, I think --

MR. SHIELDS: Well, the Republicans want to use NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that this is a place where Clinton has tried to straddle just a bit. He's for it, but he wants to see the details and they want to use probably affirmative action and they'll use this in trying to do it. Now, it's sort of a sad commentary, but this is what the Republicans are reduced to, in September of 1992, that George Bush is running for re-election and he's got to hope that somehow the doubts and skepticism and reservations about the character of his opponent are going to be enough to undo him.

MR. LEHRER: David, the Bush campaign said yesterday they would not agree to the three debates, three presidential debates, one vice presidential debate, that this nonpartisan debate commission had recommended. What's going on?

MR. GERGEN: Well, it always goes on at this time of the year and that is both sides look for the way they can maximize their advantage out of the debates. Everybody knows there's going to be at least one debate, probably two debates at the presidential level and one at the vice presidential. The question is: Can they -- the Republicans would like to get Jim Baker to a negotiating table with whatever team the Clinton folks want to get there, because they know Baker has a history of setting up a debate to favor his candidate. You know, when Baker went in to negotiate against the Dukakis team last time, he took their pants off. And he was masterful. He set up a debate that worked wonderfully for George Bush. The Clinton people don't want to go in to the negotiating table with Jim Baker. They know that. They're anxious to avoid that. We're going to have debates, but I think -- I frankly also think the Republicans aren't quite sure how to set up the debates. I think they're uncertain in their own minds what -- how the debate may work for them this year.

MR. LEHRER: I noticed, Mark, that Mickey Cantor of the Clinton campaign issued a statement yesterday after this decision, and he said, well, I can tell you one thing, there aren't going to be any closed door meetings about this; it's all going to be done out in the opening; we accept this; and they're trying to fend off that very thing.

MR. SHIELDS: It was a good move by Mr. Cantor. It's a good move and I think he's absolutely right politically to do it. I would add this. George Bush has been delivered to these debates by Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan in 1984 leading in the polls, okay, over Fritz Mondale, first time any President leading in the polls had ever agreed to debates. So you know that an incumbent President's going to debate. He is going to debate. I can't understand tactically why the Republicans don't want to debate now, because this campaign the way it's drifting, I think you'd really want to change the chemistry. I think you'd want to, you know, kind of shake things up.

MR. LEHRER: What do they have to lose?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I wouldn't wait until October, because, I mean, the longer people think about President Clinton and Clinton as President, the tougher it becomes to drop whatever they're going to try and drop on him. I'd try and get this campaign kind of --

MR. GERGEN: I agree. I'd go for one in September, one in late October. But it's very true about the Clinton people. The Clinton people would rather debate George Bush than negotiate with Jim Baker. [laughter]

MR. LEHRER: On that, we'll leave it. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. ESSAY - PUBLIC SCREENING

MR. MacNeil: We close tonight with some thoughts from Los Angeles writer Anne Taylor Fleming about the relationship between private lives and public policy.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Who would have thought it? Certainly I didn't, rushing out the Monday after the Republican Convention to get the latest polls and news magazine wrap-up only to find that instead of Bushes and Quayles on the covers of Time and Newsweek, as I had expected, who should stare out at me instead but Woody Allen, the witty, neurotic, imp of Manhattan, peering balefully out through his dark-framed glasses. On the tabloids and personality magazines, of course, I expected him there, just as we have become habituated to seeing him and his ex-partner, Mia Farrow, on the pages of the morning newspapers, even the usually gossip shy New York Times, fighting over the bones of their lost love and their extended brood, eleven in all, one of whom, an adopted Korean daughter of about twenty-one, Woody Allen had fallen in love with. He didn't. He did. How could he? He was virtually her step-father. It happens, but he never slept there, at Mia's, I mean. No, I know. They had their own apartments on either side of Central Park. I hear they hadn't had sex for four years -- he and Mia, I mean. And look at all those kids she takes in. She must be a little nuts. Yeah, but he's depraved. And so it went. All of us once again pawing over the personal details of private lives, our favorite pastime. We are the children of Oprah and Donahue, one big, nosy clack of voyeurs, the media appeasing our appetites with every turn of the page or flip at the dial. I'm not above any of this, not above jumping into the Woody/Mia fray. I too express sorrow over the messy sundering of the wispy duo. But somehow, seeing Woody Allen on the cover of those news magazines that Monday, instead of George Bush, struck me anew with what has happened in this country, a complete inversion, the complete flip of public and private, and the deep and serious consequences of that flip. What has happened, quite simply, is that there no longer is a public realm or a private realm. They have changed places. In our private lives, there is no privacy. Every act, every emotion, every ugly or messy or even joyous twist and turn of our lives, even childbirth, is now fodder for the lens, for exposure, for recycling on the TV talk show circuit.

TALK SHOW HOST: [Geraldo] What do you think should happen to Robert?

WOMAN: For what he's did to my daughters I think the -- [bleep] -- should be castrated. And I mean it!

MS. FLEMING: We leave nothing alone, no cry of anguish, or shiver of lust. All must be put on parade, poked, prodded, publicized, trivialized, and ultimately dehumanized. That's the final cost. In a world of voyeurs, everyone's an object, everything fair game, and compassion finally shrivels to tawdry curiosity at best over the daily array of famous or fame-seeking confessors.

WOMAN IN GERALDO AUDIENCE: -- give me a major break. You're supposed to have respect for each other.

MS. FLEMING: But if the private realm has become public, the public realm has been completely invaded by the private. There is no public arena anymore for political discourse, for the business of citizenship, as corny as that might sound, and for discussion of values, real values. Oh, yes, as Woody and Mia were doing their thing, the Republicans in Houston were talking about family values. But what is family values a code phrase for but private lives. It all leads back to the same place, an innuendo-filled rumor mill that has had it's way not only with Bill Clinton, but even made a pass at President Bush's own alleged and denied extramarital indiscretion. So who shall we blame for all this? The Democrats blame the Republicans. The Republicans blame the Democrats. And everyone blames the media for the hawking of private pain as public entertainment. But maybe it's really the other way around, that we, the people, have let the private invade the public because we cannot bear to have a full tilt public discussion anymore over our national problems: the crumbling cities, the level of violence in too many families, the number of kids living in poverty, our kids, our families, our cities, our home, our heartland, our country. It's much more comforting finally to curl up with Woody and Mia and wince or smirk over the mess they've made of their private lives than worry about the mess we might have made of our public ones. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main story of this Friday was the economy. The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 7.6 percent last month, but most of the improvement came from a temporary jobs program for teenagers. At the same time, employers reduced payrolls by 83,000, the largest job cut in nine months. The White House called the unemployment report an encouraging sign. Bill Clinton said it meant more bad news for American workers. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night with a Labor Day debate between Labor Sec. Lynn Martin and Steel Workers Union Chief Lynn Williams. Have a nice holiday weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.