TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 86, 12 April 1927, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Whatever the chairman of the Dairy Produce Board may say, whatever theBoard may say, whatever those producers who condemn the lifting of the fixed price, on produce in the Home market may say, our great dairy export trade wi«h the United Kingdom is under a cloud. Whether they. are interested parties or not is beside the point; tho fact remains that tho British' goodwill in the 'New Zealand butter and cheese trade has been seriously, but, we believe, not irreparably, damaged. There is still time to do something to re-establish it; indeed the Board, by a large majority, attempted to do so when it dropped fixed prices. Nevertheless, the general suspicion of the British provision trade persists. What can be done to allay it? If it has the impression that price-fixing has been dropped only to be renewed when the Board or another Board thinks the time opportune to do so, it is hardly to blame. What, then, ought to be done to restore the confidence of British traders and win back their goodwill! An authoritative and straightforward assurance should be given by tho Prime Minister that, when Parliament presently reassembles, steps shall be taken to so amend the Jaw as to deliver this vitally important dairying industry from the difficulty in which tho Board had placed it, and'to prevent any repetition of it. Tho country, looks to tho Primo Minister to give a lead in this matter.

In his review of the economic position of New Zealand the president of the Associated Chambers of Commerco raised several interesting issues. ' One of the most vital of thoso is the rqlationship of wages and prices in tho sheltered and tho unsheltered industries; but this is affected by so many varied factors that a simplo solution is impossible. Parliament may deal with ono aspect in.the forthcoming revision of tho tariff, and other aspects may be dealt with from time to time by tho Arbitration Court. In asking a solution there are two dangers to be avoided—tho danger of assuming that tho present state of affair's ia fore-or-daiued and cannot be remedied, and tho danger of hastily concluding that one factor is tho only fuctor. Primary producors who demand (he abolition of tho Arbitration system, Labour leaders who advocato public ownorship of everything, and manufacturers or importers who praise or blamo Protection aro all making this latter mistake. They aro failing to take • a broad view. Prom the conflict of their opinions it is probable that some good will einorgo; but in tho meantime tho lauding of specific nostrums has an injurious effect. Thd man who is constantly told and eventually comos to believo that his troubles aro all due to Protection or the Arbitration Court or tho Government is inclined to shuffle his per-, sonal responsibility and to neglect tho adjustment of his own affairs. Yet it is from this individual adjustment; that tho greatest good will most quickly accrue. Mr. Machin is wholly right when ho states: The whole community in some way and some of the community in. many ways have been having a little too good a time bocause of the genV oral disregard of economic facts. Almost imperceptibly tho standard of livjng has been raised and the luxuries of twenty years ago have bocomo the necessities of to-day. In so far as tnis affects tho real essentials of life wholesome food, shelter, good clothing, sound education, and medical attontion" —it would fee a mistake to lower tho standard; but older people, with a littlo contemplation, must 1 recognise that thero.is room for adjustment without touching these essentials. Tho provision for entertainment and pleasure, tho common -wearing of costly apparel,, and even the consumption of expensive prepared goods all add to the household bill of costs and diminish the amount which might otherwise bo added to the individual aud national capital account. Economy, unfortunately;' cann.ot bo enforced by Act of Parliament; buit it can be encouraged if ..the leaders of tho nation will emphasise personal responsibility a.nd not delude the people with false promises of a better time if this or that cure-all is accepted.

There is need at the present time to increase production, and as Mr. Machin points out "the relationship between tho value of the wages and the value of tho work performed is seriously impaired to-day." Wo would not be so rash as to suggest that there is a general over-payment for services, or a widespread tendency to loaf on the job. But our system of awards and rewards has gradually levelled the standard of service, Such an ( effect is inseparable

from a system of minimum wage awards. When a minimum wage is declared it becomes at first the standard. Only with time is the adjustment made which recognises different degrees of skill. TJnfortnnatcly the ragid movements in the cost of living have introduced a system of altering the minimum wage at frequent intervals. Shortterm awards have prevented the adjustment of wages according to skill and earning-power. Employers and unions are both to blame for this. The unions have been, too ready to seize upon an additional payment for better service as an excuse for claiming an increase in the minimum wage. They have pressed forward tho claims of their slowest members to the injury of the more skilled. Employers, too, have allowed themselves to be' frightened by those tactics, and have almost surrendered their right of discriminating between the good worker nnd the bad. The consequence has • been, that the good worker has formed a habit of not giving of his best; possibly with the mistaken idea that if he does more than his mate he is injuring him. Actually no such injury is done. The good craftsman who earns more, and receives more, benefits himself, his employer, and tho whole community—including even the slow worker, because the latter mnst share in the general benefit of increased production and cheapened commodities. If these facts were perceived and aeeepted in practice —with less frequent general wage adjustments—theTe would be a distinct advantage to all workers.

Quite plainly the.restriction upon big art unions has not been applied too soon. The figures published. show, that several of these big lotteries have yielded very little to charity or sport or whatever was the object of their promotion. The public contributions havo sometimes been absorbed for the most parj in prizes, administration, and advertising. In a word, th,o art unions havo become sweepstakes and a most uneconomic method of raising funds for public purposes. The. statement published referred to the art unions controlled by an organisation in Auckland, and presumably theso were the most successful. A full account of expenses and receipts is not given, but it seems that even the most successful cannot have yielded a profit greater than 60 per cent, of the contributions, and many showed much less, down to under two' per cent. Briefly, thert, each £ 1 contributed by the public yielded at most 12s and at least 3d to the objective. Sensiblo men will acknowledge that, if the raising of funds for public purposes is the real objective, direct giving is ton times more desirable. Indeed, it is just humbug and pretence to cover the art unions with the, cloak of charity. People who do not advance this excuse for this form of gamble may, of course, claim that tho lottery is just as excusable as tho totalisator; but that is another issue. The art unions have been permitted in law becauso they wore considered an easy means of raising funds for desirable objects. It is dear that if any attempt is made in future to revivo the system it will be necessary, as has bocn pointed out previously, to mako the issue of pormits conditional upon a guaranteo that tho object of tho lottery recoives a substantial part of the contributions—at least something more than 3d in the £. •