IN THE PUBLIC MIND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 208, 2 September 1932, Page 6

IN THE PUBLIC MIND.

MECHANISED INDUSTRY. WILL LABOUR BENEFIT? (To the Editor.) Kindly allow me to say that not only is there no "evil relationship" between the increasing unemployment and an advance of mechanisation, but it is quite obvious -that machinery has rendered a great service by taking over large masses of heavy, dull and unpleasant work. As regards the use of machinery in mines, its first effect was to relieve human labour from much of the heaviest muscular toil. On the other hand, one may be permitted the opinion that often a terrible price is paid in human suffering for mechanical improvement. "Unemployment is the gravest of the social maladies of the day." Therefore there is a tragical consequence with regard to those losing a job, as a result of a "machine being installed. Fortunately, in New Zealand we have not reached a degree of intense production in which the labour market is violently disturbed by the introduction of new machinery. In this Dominion mass production and specialised processes of manufacture are in their infancy. Facts, then, concerning an industrial country will perhaps be more insistent. Statistics, of course, give us some light. If carefully checked, I believe they would prove that thousands of people are idle in England to-day because their work is now done by a mechanical device. Many of those unfortunately discarded by the "putting down" of automatic lathes in metal and engineering trades and automatic spindles and looms in the textile industry have not found, so we are informed, a situation in recently-erected factories, where either wire apparatus or artificial silk goods are made. These and many other fresh avenues of occupation are open to only a comparative few, while older industries are dispensing with big numbers as they are brought up to date. A person visiting Britain after a lapse of ten years sees in every establishment a startling change. Benches* have been replaced by machines, which are undoubtedly a product of the mind of genius. "Engineering science" has not given "something new to work at" to those cast aside by these marvellous inventions. You learn that the people have remained out of work since being discharged from their old firms when they first became modernised. Results from the application of science to industry should be considered beneficial if they express themselves to be the liberator of man's free productive tastes and faculties, performing for him routine toil, so that he may have time and energy to devote to activities more interesting and varied, thereby enjoying a fuller and nobler life. That it has not done so yet the impoverishment of any great overseas city is there is tell us. But I am sanguine enough to believe t'hat this problem of man versus machines, like all other difficulties this world has to fa<ce, can be solved by a bodv of men sufficiently resolute. S. GLADING.

REFLATION NOT INFLATION. "Vigilante," in your issue of August 29, makes an attempt to draw the red herring across the scent in relation to the proposals of those who are working for the reform of our currency by advocating stabilisation, reflation, and an honest national finance. Your correspondent should remember that calling names cuts no ice. If those he dubs "amateurs," "inflationists," etc., cannot do better than those experts who have landed the world into the present condition financially and economically (and be it remembered that those who are so termed include such men as the Rt. Hon. R. Mcfyenna, Sir Josiah Stamp, Mr. A. C. Davidson and Professor Soddy), it will not speak much for them or their ability. The experts who have so long "managed our currency" have not always done so in the interests of the mass of the people. I am equally opposed to both inflation and deflation. Stabilisation and reflation are the objectives of the currency reformers. At Ottawa it was conceded that a higher price level for commodities was a necessary prelude to the stabilisation of the currency, and a return to prosperity. They refrained from stating 'how this was to be accomplished, but we have outlined a workable plan from time to time. As long ago as 1923 Mr. J. M. Keynes said: "Currency reform has two objects, to remedy the credit .cycle, and to mitigate unemployment and all the evils of .uncertainty; to link the monetary standards to what matters, namely, the value_ of the staple articles of consumption." Speaking of the figment of a gold standard, the Rt. Hon. R. McKenna said in 1925: "I have endeavoured to explain the meaning of a managed currency and the methods of maintaining its value by regulating quantity of money through central credits. There is no need to incur the cost involved in buying and holding gold as a reserve." Since 1925 Britain has returned to the gold standard, and again abandoned it, to avert national bankruptcy —or something very near to it. Speaking of the possibility and even the necessity of monetary stabilisation, Professor Irving Fisher says: "If the circulation of money and the circulation of goods, each of equal value, should keep going at the same pace year after year there would be no inflation and no' deflation. There could be no change in the general price level, provided that both grew greater or grew less at the same time." This would constitute reflation and stabilisation. REFLATION. MARRIED RELIEF WORKERS.

May I be permitted to bring before the notice of your readers the present situation of the married relief worker (without children dependent upon him) ? Our allocation is days per week, for which we receive £ 5/. There are no additional benefits or concessions. We are in a worse plight than any other section of relief workers. Take the following indispensable and irreducible items per week: Rent 10/, fuel 2/, lighting 1/; total, 13/. That leaves 12/ for cheap meat, bread, milk, vegetables (extra to what we grow) 4 butter, tea and other groceries, etc. Clothing (save sackcloth and ashes) for our section must be excluded. I respectfully solicit. the serious consideration and advice of any of your readers or any official of the Unemployment Board as to how we can be expected to live as human beings and pay our way on fl 5/ per week. CERBERUS. MEDICAL SERyiCE. In answer to "Northerner" in your issue of August 30, I would like to point out that the friendly society system at present in vogue in this country supplies medical attention to its members at as cheap if not a cheaper rate than the British panel system (which your correspondent seems to think is restricted to London). "Northerner's" suggestion that the present custom of voluntary (more or less) free treatment should give way to compulsory free treatment would hardly seem equitable. Under the British Insurance Act every worker and every employer is taxed to support the scheme, and I do not think that any fresh taxation would be practical or popular at the moment. Although national health insurance is, in my opinion, much overdue in New Zeai land, in the meantime the burden of supplying medical service at reasonable rates" must be borne by friendly societies in those cases where the Hospital Board is unable to give suitable attention, and the medical practitioner will continue to give free attention to those who are "up against it." There is no euch thing as free medical attention. Someone has to pay, very often the doctor himself, j I know; I happen to be one. • MEDICAiL PAfV®?.