LABOUR NOTES

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 60, 7 September 1912, Page 12

LABOUR NOTES

(By " Unionist.") THE ECONOMICS" OF LOAFING.

Mr. W. M. Hughes, Federal AttorneyGeneral, in a recent article very definitely refutes the statement that Labour in office encourages the "ca'-canny" system. Concluding his article, he says :—: — "Let us now look at it for a moment from an economic standpoint. It is the policy of the Labour Party to extend the functions of the State as an employer. We believe that the people should do their own -work for their own benefit. The carrying out of Government works by day labour is an instalment of that principle. In the case of such work the whole community is the employer. The wages paid to the men on the job come out of the pockets of the people. So much is obvious. But lot us parry the matter a little farther. There is to-day, say, one adult male out of ten who is in one way or another working for the community— through the various agencies of government — Commonwealth, State, municipalities, and other public bodies. Daily the proportion of public servants is being increased ; and this tendency, whether it stops short of complete Socialism or not, will inevitably go a good deal farther. Suppose that Socialism were here; that all work was done by and under the control of the community. What would be the position of the loafer? "Where do wages come from?, They are not like manna, that falls from heaven. Nor do they come, as some of our friends think, out of the pockets of the employer. There is nothing complex about the matter at all. Wage is that portion of the wealth produced that is Said to the producer. Under proper conitions the more wealth a community produced the higher wages each man would receive. But wealth is not the fruit of loafing, but of working. If all loafed there would be but little wealth. The total amount of wealth produced would be the reward of the community's labour. If it is right for one man to loaf it is right for all ; and, if all loafed, then the wages of all would be decreased. Or, to put it in another way, if the community loafed, it would have to either work longer hours or be satisfied with fewer things— -clothes, food, luxuries. When a man says he has a right to loaf he says no more than the truth ; but he has no right to loaf at the expense of the community. If he does he cheats his fellow-man just as does the grocer who gives short weight or adulterates his goods. If a man works for himself he is in the same position as a community doing its own work under Socialism. If he loafs it is his own business. At the end of the day or year the fraits of his labour are so much less than if he had worked harder. If he is satisfied with what he gets, no one has a right to complain. And I freely admit that much of the work of the world is unnecessary. What we want is to limit our wants, rather than to increase our labour. "But this is a side-issue of the ques* tion. What we are concerned with is, 'Is it right for a man to loaf on another ?' Clearly it is not. Morally it is outrageous. And economically it is a false doctrine, for the community cannot reap where it has not sown. There is only one way to produce wealth, and that is by labour. There ought to be only one way by which men could live-^-by honest labour. Society to-day worships strange gods, but that is no reason why men who see the light should bow the knee to them. Loafers and parasites of all sorts abound, and are preying upon the vitals of the community j but we who seek to reform society, not to further corrupt it, must set our faces resolutely against all things not builded upon a basis of truth, justice, and love to all men. And loafing' is a violation of all three of these principles."