The Press. SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1894. THE "LIVING WAGE."

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8789, 10 March 1894, Page 6

The Press. SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1894. THE "LIVING WAGE."

The problem of tha relative shares of capital and labour in the products of industry is an ever present difficulty in all attempts at a solution of social questions. On the one hand we have the view of the Laissez-faire School of economists, who would leave the determination to the action of free competition. But though Trades Unionism has done much to strengthen the position of the wage-earner in adjusting the bargain to his own advantage, experience has not gone to show that the worker is on an equal footing with the capitalist in making the adjustment, and there are still a large proportion of workers—chiefly the unskilled—whom Unionism has not completely reached, and who frequently, fail to obtain such remuneration for their toil as the highest sense of humanity and justice could desire. On the other hand there is the extreme " surplus value " theory of Karl Marx. He would deprive the capitalist of any share whatever on the ground that it is labour alone that confers value. He argues with some plausibility that it is the work of the carpenter that confers on the planks the additional value they have in the form of a box or table; and that therefore the carpenter is entitled to the full value of the thing produced. But he forgets the share of the plane and chisel, for the purchase of which capital is necessary. And it must be obvious to the simplest praotioal understanding that where the carpenter does not provide his plane and chisel a second party enters in to claim the reward of tha capital, or, in other words, of the abstinence and thrift, that has provided the toola, It is impossible to get away from the fact that Q>pLtal will not ba provided for industrial operations from philanthropic motives only, without pecuniary reward, and that without the auxiliary of capital most industrial operations become impossible. Hence, between these extreme schools come another intermediate class of thinkers, who, recognising the rights of both capital and labour, nevertheless would have their claims settled by some more equitable means than the | unrestricted action of free competition. | And the means suggested are many. Some would have the State intervene ! to fix a legal fair wage—a proposal that has never yet been proved even remotely practicable, and which when tried in preceding industrial eras was fraught with disaster. The workmen themselves endeavour to solve the difficulty by the rough and ready device of M strikes " —a method that in nine cases out of ten spells ruin to the wage-earners. The compromise known as a "living wage " seems to have a good deal to recommend it. It has recently been sanctioned by the high authority of the Londqn County Council, and the industrial world, as well as economic speculators, will watch the experiment in its hands with interest. The Council has abolished the contract system in its puWic works. It employs labour directly, and pays where practicable, Trades Union wages. But where no Unions exist—as in the case of unskilled labour—it pays what is termed a " living wage." That is to say, it remunerates its workmen, not at the lowest rates determined by competition, but on such a scale that the workers reasonably be expected to " live " on the wages according to the standard of comfort that obtains in their class. And in the present overstocked state of the labour market at Home there is no doubt the wage as settled by the action cf unrestricted competition often falls below this scale. The system seems to be regarded with favour by the workers themselves, and has been imitated and adopted already by mora than forty public bodies in England. It is, of course, such bodies that are best adapted for testing the experiment. The capital they deal with is not of their own private accumulation; and the determination of a fair " living wage " by them is not interfered with by the conflict of their own private interests or their own personal greed of gain. It is impossible not to view such an experiment with interest. Its initiation radicates a progressive spirit, and if it succeeds in ameliorating the condition of the v workers must be welcomed by every humane and liberalminded man. For the lot of the English labourer is not cast in pleasant places, and it is impossible not to feel the strongest sympathy with every practical effort to improve it. His earnings, even when regularly employed, are seldom enough to give him more than a bare subsistence. Living in a cramped garret in a crowded court, insufficiently protected by fuel and clothing , against the rigours of an English winter, fed on the scantiest fare and tasting meat but seldom, to the luxuries of life he is an absolute stranger. Contrasted wich this even the least well paid of our labouring population, even the most unlucky of our unemployed, have comforts aud even pleasures within their reach that give life a much less sombre colour. Yet, even in New Zealand, infinitely easier though the conditions of life are by contrast, there is much room for improvement in the condition of the toiler. And every instinct of humanity and philanthropy prompts ua to wish for the betterment of his fate. We are no advocates of ill-considered novelties or hasty social experiments:

but we hope the new departure of the London County Council will be closely watched in New Zealand; and we should be glad to see public bodies at any rate put the system to the test. But we cauuot too emphatically j remind the workers that withoutj capital they are helpless; aud that if they work to improve their own con- j ditions they must not render j general prosperity impossible by coercive and repressive legislation against the brain workers and wageproviders to whom they must look for the sinews of war and the enterprise that sets going industrial undertakings. To do so ia simply to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Aud the providers of capital to our industries in New Zealand may well be pardoned if they are in no mood to consider measures of amelioration and systems of increasing the wage-earners' share. They are too much engrossed with the problem of making both ends meet; our most pressing problem is rather the production of wealth than the distribution of it. Men of capital and enterprise receive so liotle encouragement at present to pursue commercial or manufacturing undertakings, that they are in no humour for making concessions to the workers whose political representatives do all they cau by punitive taxation and meddlesome legislation to discountenance their efforts. If workmen want a more advantageous distribution of the products of industry they must see to it that such conditions are created as will enable industry to flourish and capital to be accumulated aud employed. They will find ib their wisest policy to encourage and stimulate, nob to harass and repress, the industrial prosperity of the colony. Only then will it be possible for themselves to share more liberally iv its gains. Let them legislate as they will about hours and rates and systems, unless the capital embarked in industry is scoured a fair remuneration for the abstinence aud thrift necessary for its accumulation— unless, in a word, confidence is restored —they must continue to suffer tbe disabilities of low wages aud uncertain employment.