COUNCIL AND WAGE CUTS.

Evening Star, Issue 21723, 18 May 1934, Page 8

COUNCIL AND WAGE CUTS.

TO THE EDiTOK. Sir, —“ Ratepayer ” has no need to lament about the expression of abuse, for none was ever intended, although the latest effusion would certainly justify something drastic, if a reasonable answer is to be found to the original protest .made by your correspondent that the council employees are not entitled to any consideration until the position of the relief workers has been amended. From this protest your .correspondent has strayed away to Christchurch, Deep Stream, and Waipori. The only sentence of acknowledgment is that referring to the ■council employees being in a garden of roses. If this lie the limit of your correspondent’s possible outlook, then God save New Zealand. If those people who are enjoying life on the basic rate of the Dunedin City Council are to be envied, then there is very little hope for humanity. The average earnings are £3 18s a week, not allowing for loss of time through sickness or" bad weather. If this should be a constant income of £3 18s a week, and a person-is to pay.rent and all the other liabilities of maintaining an honest and reasonable standard of living, well, to say the least, he ought to be free from the envy of all respectable people. The argument may be used that many people are existing upon a far less income. In reply all one can say is this, that the powers that be should be ashamed to know that such conditions exist. Your correspondent allows his imagination to run riot when he publicly declares that money was poured away like water at Waipori. The job was carried out from an engineering point of view just as efficiently as it would have been done by any private firm. If any waste did take place at Waipori, it could only be when the city councillors took fright after seeing the huge undertaking, and immediately appealed to the Government to take over the Waipori concern. They decided that they would not build the Waipori Dam to the 110 ft, but would build the dam with a hole in the centre so that the roads to the Waipori township should not bo flooded. If this be a Waipori waste, then the only just thing to do is to place the guilt where the guilt lies, and rightly belongs.— I am,,etc.,

May 18,

R. Harrison

TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—ln answer to Mr M. Silverstone, who states that ho was never frightened of blind puppies, fortunately so far as Ratepayer ” is concerned it is not a question of the blind leading the blind, as I will endeavour to prove in answer to that statement. So Ratepayer ” cannot be Labour if ho is opposed to the restoration of all wage cuts, as this is the policy of the real Labourites. MacDonald Labour is a misnomer , - Lansbnry, Labour is pathe-

I tic in the extreme; Savage Labour and those who follow him will persist in advocating milking a cow that han gone dry. On perusing the New Zealand Official Year Book, 1934, I find that New Zealand’s so-called properity was due to the fact that her indebtedness increased from 99 million pounds in 1914 to 283 millions gross in 1933, and that our interest account amounted to 11.5 millions per annum. Local body indebtedness increased from 43 millions in 1923 to 72.5 in 1932; the interest charge amounts to 3.5 millions per annum. Mr Silverstouc says “ Ratepayer’s " opposition to wage cut restoration is a distinct anti-Labour attitude; furthermore, he asserts that “ Ratepayer ” was not prepared to protest against this burden of interest because of legal obstacles, but takes the opportunity of showing his concern for the struggling unemployed ratepayers by objecting lo wage cut restoration. What a ridiculous position for a Labour supporter to he in! Despite Mr Silverstone’s opinion. I still hold that I am one of the genuine Labour supporters. but I am afraid, so far as 1 am concerned, we have arrived at the parting of the ways. Labour men who advocate restoring wage cuts without giving due consideration to the fundamentals of such a proposal are simply taking a leap in the dark. During these so-called years of prosperity we were unfortuntaely .living in a fool’s paradise, owing to the fact that the longer time prosperity continued the further we were in debt. There have only been two occasions in the history of New Zealand that a reduction in the gross public debt has been effected during the financial year. The first occasion was in 1891-92, when the debt was reduced by £117,282, and the second in 1922-23, when a slight reduction of £101,061 was recorded. These figures prove conclusively that we have been living more or less on loans. With external debts piling up where are we drifting to? Coming a little nearer home, to the question of private enterprise and general business, all business is carried on more or less by bank overdraft. The bank issues £IOO worth of credit, and the business man has to return at the minimum £lO5 actual money, gathered from amongst the community. Will our friend Mr Silverstone explain how the employer can carry on his business profitably in order that he may increase the wages and salaries of his employees and meet his obligations, in view of the fact that no business issues sufficient purchasing power to purchase the whole of its production? One particular firm may succeed for a time, but how can business be carried on in genera] when more has to be recovered from the community than is paid out ? Only by still further increasing our indebtedness. Where is the restoration of wage cuts to come from? Only from increased debt, more interest. Mr Silverstone accuses me of supporting the wage reductions and side-stepping the question of interest burdens. I can assure him that I am not guilty of either offence. But seeing he .is so sanguine about the Labour policy of restoring the wage cuts, but is opposed to increasing further the debt and interest which he cannot evade under our money order, the age of miracles has nob passed by Labour’s logic.—l am. etc. Ratepayer.

May 18