The structural problem of unemployment, in Latin America and in Brazil, reaffirms historic domestic social injustice, but at the same time is also the fruit of the 'bad tree' of the international economy. The mobilization of the CONIC churches around the suffering caused by unemployment confirms that this is the central problem at the beginning of the new millenium. What will happen to jobs in the next century? Unemployment? Why? The churches want the society to be conscious of the terrible situation in which people with no jobs find themselves; they want to spark solidarity actions that will keep hope alive and maintain human dignity; they want to fight for policies that will benefit the people instead of the markets; and they want to strengthen and lift up the Christian message.

We denounce the neo-liberal model that generates unemployment and imposes a pattern of selfish consumerism. We bear witness to a society based on new paradigms which will promote life in all its dimension; that regulates the economy and politics; that has the human being as its central focus; and recognizes work as a source for a blessed and abundant life.

First we need to distinguish 'job' and 'work.' Not everything that is work is a job. In Brazil, part of the economically viable population has not had a job for a long time. Our model of society has always been exclusive and incapable of accepting everyone. Our history and our way of life have always been in response to external interests. With industrialization, capitalism has practically reduced work to a job–making it almost impossible to have a job that does comply with its rules.

Paid work is, today, and for the great majority of people, the main source of survival, social integration, personal identity, and even the reason for living. Therefore, unemployed people, besides the suffering and real survival problems they have, also have their self-esteem shaken. They sometimes succumb because they feel themselves to be unsuccessful 'losers.' As a result, family relations are destroyed as well as social connections, and social consequences increase poverty, forced migration, cultural uprooting, higher tension, and violence, etc.

Some theorists prophesy 'the end of work.' In truth, they speak of a type of occupation that everyone got used to calling work, the work created by industrial capitalism. It is not the end of work poesis in the sense of the creative achievement that is so much a part of human dignity. During the unemployment crisis there is a possibility for work to pass time, or as a vinculum of social relations and a means to human engagement.

But today's reality is different: how can we assure a dignified survival to everyone, independent of a paid job? How can the wealth generated from the increase in productivity be re-distributed? What is produced today is more than enough to guarantee everyone's survival with no exclusions.

The statistics of world unemployment show that in Latin America in general and Brazil in particular the tendency is for the number of unemployed to grow. More than half of the workers in the Caribbean and Latin America are in the informal market. In Brazil, between 1994 and 1998, unemployment has doubled.

In Brazil, the segments of the population most affected by unemployment are youth, women, and black people. Some examples from the state of Sao Paulo reflect the national reality very well:

The so called technological revolution and the speed with which the new programs develop (telecommunications, industry, biology, and agriculture) has increased the mass numbers of unemployment, especially for the non-qualified workers (laborers); raw material has been devalued. Knowledge is a decisive factor in production and it will be the fuel of the twenty-first century.

The low price of manufactured products and their broad distribution and consumption has contributed to the idea that everything that is technologically possible must be done. Technology, therefore, has no limits, including ethical ones.

The 'financing of the world,' the transitional economy, the globalization of capital very much explain what is happening today. The power of the financial markets is greater than that of the nation states. The capital, money, disconnects itself from production and trade, turning to speculation and creating more unemployment. At no time has money generated so much money. However, since 1997, when the crisis of the 'Asiatic Tigers' took place, and even the crisis in Brazil, the 'god' of the financial market showed that it has feet of clay.

The introduction of new machines, and more of them, in factories usually reduces the work force by more than 40%; the reduction can even reach 75%. The working systems change, the part-time positions increase as well as the temporary and sub-contracted ones. There is a tendency to reduce the number of 'central' or 'integrated' workers and replace them with 'workers from the periphery' workers that can be laid-off without great cost, according to changes in the markets.

An estimate of the last few years shows that never in human history has so much wealth been produced with so little work. The work already incorporated into the technology produces the greater part of the traditional work. In the capitalist countries of Europe, in the last 35 years, the wealth has almost quadrupled, and the volume of work has decreased substantially. In Germany volume has increased by 30% and in France, by 15%. At the end of World War II, a European farmer would feed four people: now, 35 years later, he can feed 35 people with the same number of working hours.

In Brazil, from 1985 to 1995, the production of grain has increased by 51% but the area cultivated for grain has decreased by almost 10%. The farming productivity has increased more than 64%. More production with less work. The distribution of the production income through salaries is outdated and it does not distribute wealth. We will have to find new ways.

It is not enough 'to regain economic growth,' as some say. Just 'making the cake bigger' does not guarantee that it will be divided equally. It can, in fact, do the opposite by concentrating the revenue without increasing the levels of employment. In Spain, between 1970 and 1992, the economy grew by 93% and employment decreased by 2%.

It is also not enough to reduce productivity to decrease unemployment. The important thing is to distribute the benefits of the productivity. This must be a sign to all of those who advocate 'total equality' to all dimensions of human life, including culture, education, health, and social relations.

The flexibility of working relations is also a trap. Countries that have tried this alternative have not decreased their unemployment (Argentina). In Brazil, work relations are already precarious: 50% of the workers have held their jobs for less than two years. That shows that the cost of laying off workers is not too high. It is cheaper to fire and rehire a worker than to keep him working.

Labor in Brazil is not expensive! The hourly rate for industrial workers, for example, in Brazil is $2.68 (US); in Korea it is $4.93(US); $11.73(US) in Spain; $16.40 in the United States; and $28.87 (US) in Germany. Therefore, it is not the labor costs that cause unemployment. On the other hand, the reduction of salaries compresses the internal market and once again aggravates unemployment.

To understand what happens in Brazil and in other countries in the same circumstances we have to always remember our subordinated entry into the world economy, open to indiscriminate external competition and a currency with an inflated value based on extremely high interest rates and an inflated exchange rate and all of it following the rules of the IMF and the 'respect' and 'trust' of the great speculators.

With such adverse conditions, what are the possibilities of getting out of this cycle? Within the actual model there is no way to avoid unemployment, external dependency, and general impoverishment. The challenge is in the building of a society that does not exist just to produce goods, but which is able to convert the profits from its productivity to the benefit of a better quality of life for all. Instead of an elite and excluding market, the priority should be for the production of goods necessary for the society at large.

The churches, the social movements, and some political parties fight to diminish the dramatic problem of unemployment. Here are some practical measures:

There is also the area of socially useful work:

It is the work that can be classified as Fourth Sector, not to be confused with the Third Sector of services and commerce. Socially useful work consists of activities that compete for the creation of a more humane society which would be more caring of the environment, socially oppressed groups (the elderly, the drug addicts, and people with physical and mental challenge), and which would result in better social relations. The concept of work must come from more than just an understanding paid employment. It also includes domestic work, the education of children, and work in other social services.

The churches start from a stance of 'ethical indignation.' They proclaim the liberating Word of God, while confronting the drama of millions of Brazilians without work. The Gospel of St. Matthew gives a clue from Scripture. In Matthew 12.33-35 we read of the good and the bad tree. The bad tree produces bad fruit (unemployment, for instance). The root is sin, the sin of an ideological, political, economic, and social system built on the basis of financial profit at any cost.

There are clear ethical and theological criteria for the church's position in favor of a culture that supports life:

• Justice. Human dignity is fundamental.
• Solidarity. We are closely connected to each other and the environment, sharing the same destiny.
• Sustenance. It is not enough to protect nature we also have to make it better for future generations.
• Equal Division and solidarity of production and profits. The ones with less should get the highest benefits.
• Woldwide solidarity. In search of justice and the exchange of alternative experiences for the neo-liberal model.