PAYMENT BY RESULTS

Evening Star, Issue 19638, 18 August 1927, Page 15

PAYMENT BY RESULTS

MR HOGG'S ADVOCACY “is Micro any justification f° r higher wages?” asked’Mr James Hogg during the course of his address at the annual meeting of_ the Dunedin Manufacturers’ Association last evening. Ho claimed that bigger wages could only bo paid if the workers increased tlicir output, which would result in cheaper prices and greater prosperity for all. The higher, the wages labor was aide, to earn legitimately, ho said, tho better it was for_ the conimuuity <is it whole, since it enable*.! tho working man to raise his standard of living and ho could afford to obtain some of the comfort of life, and was incited to greater effort in his productive capacity. As tho wealth of_ a country depended on tho productivity of its population, tho adoption of any means tending to increase tho productivity would increase the national wealth. Just us tho development of their industries increased tho homo market for their primary products, so any rise in tho standard of Jiving provided a country with an increased homo market. The idea that higher wages was better nationally was based on the assumption that labor should be paid by wages bearing some relation to output rather than by a fixed wage, as at present. There was a common belief, which was often being echoed in this dominion,_ that higher wages meant higher price for _ commodities and a higher cost of living. On the basis of payment on production this fear would bo removed. Higher wages could be paid in this country, only if tho workers produced their maximum and concentrated more individual attention to tho welfare and prosperity of their business rather than on the present idea of the standard rale for restricted effort. “Much has been said,” lie said, “of tho industrial prosperity of tho American worker, and if this is real, then tho method by which that prosperity was achieved is worth our consideration and adoption.' It seems evident from dozens of instances Unit the American worker, through giving his service in a spirit of co-operation, has been enabled to participate in tho results of that co-nporation and at I lie same time benefit his employer. Mr Philip Snowdon, M.P., ex-Cha livelier of the Exchequer in the Labor Governmont, in a striking article in the liondon ‘Evening News,’ said: ‘ Tho capitalist system is here, ami it is likely to remain for some time. To sabotage tho capitalist system is to force down wages and to ercuto unemployment. .lb is also being realised that trade depends upon purchasing power, and that higher wages moans a bigger demand for goods.’ The crux of tho matter is the fact that real wages can ho raised only by the workers making a larger contribution to tho common fund. If monetary wages were raised 25 per cent., with not accompanying increase of output, tho worker would be no hotter off—possibly worse. On the other hand, if a 25 per cent, increase of output per worker were made, and tho proportionate increase of wages for tho output paid, there would bo an increase in prosperity, cheaper prices of commodities, and a greater purchasing power.” Labor had expressed a fear that the payment in results scheme would lead to more work being done in a given time, with the result of throwing more men out of work. This fallacy could best bo answered in the words of Mr Sydney Webb, who claimed that “ this was really a gross fallacy.”