SOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9386, 9 April 1896, Page 3

SOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

TO TiIJS EDITOR OF TUB PKES9. Sxr, —Jo a sub-leader under the above heading, in your issue of Monday, you say "Dr. Elmslie does not hesitate to aay, as we have often said iv these columns, that the want of employment, which is largely responsible for the increase in the charitable aid vote, is in itself principally due to the unsettling effect o! recent legislation." Thie particular statement is, in my opiuion, tht only weak point in Dr. lilmslie'a valuabh paper, your continual harping on the same solitary string, Mr Editor, notwithstanding. There are undoubtedly several minor or secondary causes which have affected the labour market and produced a dearth of employment, and in consequence increased poverty. The primary cause is, I maintain, the low price of our produce for a length of time, which has materially affected the wages fund. This direct loss has been intensified by the very poor yield over large areas under crop. It will bo seen at a glance what difference there would have been in the receipts of Canterbury farmers if they had received Is per bushel more for their grain, and had this been supplemented by an average of, say, five additional bushels per acre over three-fifths of the land v crop in Canterbury. Moreover, the lon price of wheat for two or three seasons caused a considerable diminution in the acreage sown. This affected ploughmen, implement manufacturers and harvest men directly and indirectly—a very large number of our wage-earners. Now, with respect to secondary causes, their name is legion. I could if space would permit, point out how laboursaving machinery has, to a very large extent, displaced hand labour. How the high rate of interest, general and local taxation, wbich unfortunately no Government can much reduce, have all had a share in tightening the pinch of poverty. High wages, however, I think have, had more to do with causing a lack of employment then all other circumstances, apart from low prices, put together. It has produced trouble to many workmen in two ways. In the first place, it has compelled th« struggling farmer to diepense with all paid labour directly hie grain was secured, him< self and family doing work which other conditions would be paid for. Aye, and many of these struggling farmers working twelve to sixteen hours six days in the week. Is it strange that employment should be scarce when men demand Is per hour and food for harvest work, when wheat is eelliog for 2s and oats for Is per bushel ? Then in the second place, thie high wage is generally spent freely. It is to be feared sometimes extravagantly, not to say foolishly. To pub it plainly, want o( thrift is a very common failing with many. In concluaion, I wish to say that I am no advocate of low pay, but we are faoe to face with the eimple fact that continuous labouß cannot command a higher pries than the price of its produce will fetch in the open market.—Youra, &c, Rustic.