FROM WAR TO WORK.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume IX, Issue 116, 2 May 1919, Page 3

FROM WAR TO WORK.

(By

SAMUEL TURNER.)

CHAPTER VIII,

CAN WE PRODUCE TOO FAST?

There is no fallacy more common ♦w'en to-day in .this country than the widespread belief that there is only a limited amount of “work” in the world and that an increase in the individual output must inevitably lead to overproduction and unemployment. AVe saw in the last chapter the effect of that theory in leading the worker to restrict his output. Thousands of workers undoubtedly believe that the world can only make use of a given amount of manufactured products, and that if this quantity is manufactured in the cheapest and quickest way, thousands would soon be out of work. This doctrine has been so zealously preached in this country, and the minds of thousands of workers have become so obsessed with it, that many people despair, even in the light of what the war has taught us, of ever eradicating it. Yet this idea is utterly false: and unless our people can be convinced of its falsehood, 1 see very little hope for our industrial future. I propose here to examine the attitude of other nations to this vital question, looking at it on its merits, and without regard to traditional or inherited influences. If to produce little were to the interest of the community and of the individual, it is evident that those nations whose people produce little or nothing should be examples to the rest of the world of the truth of this theory. On the other hand, wo ought to find the greatest measure of poverty and unemployment among those nations whoso citizens produce on a lavish scale. Unfortunately for tho argument, the reverse is the case. Sensible men admit that one ounce of fact is worth pounds of theory. Why not accept the truth which lies under our very eyes? In India. China, Egypt, and [Other countries as yet unblest with an t industrial system, countries in which i the individual worker .produces very I little—next to nothing indeed, machin- ! erv being practically unknown —tho people have hardly a coat to their backs and are well acquainted with the spectro of famine. But if the argument that ti> produce little brings prosperity is ; to stand, this ought not to be so. Every ■ one ought to he well off and prosperous r as no one is doing his fellow out of a job. Ho is creating work for him by lining none himself. Yet poverty and misery are tho result, because tho theory of restricted output is false, and the facts prove its falsehood. Now consider the reverse case—tho case of tho more enlightened nations where tho benefits of machinery aro more or less fully recognised. I will take America as an example, because that country accepts more wholeheartedly than any other the proposition that to produce to tho fulness of one’s powers is good business. If the limited output theory were true, the Americans .should.be a poor impoverished people. Unemployment should be chronic among them, for when a man by using machine tools does the work of six of his fellows, the other five—according to tho theory —are thrown on the streets and left'to starve. That must be the result, :f tho doctrine held by so many of my critics bo true. Once again, the facts demonstrate its falsehood. I know America very well: and I have ' often wondered why so many millions of our best go there and never come back. I have my own ideas on the subject'. But I will give instead the evidence of Mr. E. W. Scripps, a wellknown American newspaper proprietor and a Socialist who cannot bo accused of any bias in favour of the capitalist. This is what Mr. Scripps wrote in “The i New York Statesman” :

“The average wage of the American working man is several times greater than that of tho English working man. The average hours of daily labour of the American working man are from tiventy to forty per cent, less than those of the English working man. I know enough of the average conditions in England and her cities to know that, on the average, tho American working man is not only far better nurtured and nourished, but that ho is far better housed and clothed, and that his children aro far more generally, and perhaps far hotter, educated than those of the English working class.”

In the light of such cold facts, what is there left of the ridiculous theory which represents the results of high production as mischievous to the working man ? Tho question is of such vast importance to the future of our own people that 1 must ask my readers .to consider a little more closely still tho facts about America. The Americans are our own kith and kin; but on this subject they think differently, because in their own surroundings they have been able to judge the question impartially. We have not: before the war, at any rate, we had failed to think it out on its merits, owing to our inherited prejudices. And now listen to the conclusion drawn by Air. Samuel Gompers. Air. Gompers is the President of the American 1’ ederation of Labour. He represents j workers —the men whose conditions are I described by Air. Scripps. Lest he should be thought a voice crying in | the wilderness, remember that in this) country there are only about 4,000,900 Trade Unionists all told. This, then, is what 2,000,000 organised American workmen say through their chief : ‘‘We are not going to have the trouble here that Britain had through restriction of production-! There has not been any restriction of output lor over thirty years in America. We in the United States have followed an entirely different policy. We say to tho employers: ‘Bring in all the improved machinery and new tools you can find. We will help you to improve them still further, and we will get the utmost produce out of them; but what we insist on is the limitation of the hours of labour for the individual to eight per day. Work two shifts a day if you please, or work your machinery all round the twenty-four hours if you like, with three shifts, and we will help you; but we insist on the normal working day with lull physical effort. We will not agree to that overwork producing the poison of over-fatigue which destroys the maximum of production, undermines the health of the individual worker, and destroys his capacity for daily industrial effort.” This is what millions of Englishmen domiciled in America think who have left their country never to return, if wo are not to lose all our best workmen and all our vital industries, that is what we must think too. Let us now examine the question of consumption: for consumption and production are two sides of a wheel, which must balance if it is to run true. The fundamental fact about consumption under high production is that tho consumers are the producers. America has always depended primarily upon her home market. The high wages paid m the United States iiaxe been offset by scientific methods: and the consequence was that before tho war tno wholesale factory prices of many commodities ui America were as low as here. Bum production and scientific metnods hay e reduced the prices of commodities steadily. Tho history ot steel produ--tion is a capital example or nigii P llJ * duction in operation.’ In loot) tne United States produced less than a, million tons ot steel. In k produced over forty millions 1-diced ihou.-aml ions of steel Mils hau> been P i.aimed at Bethlehem in a single day. Yet price.-. m steel ia>h bavu lalieit Steadily year by year m® l ;:o lu -'7 do’hrs per ton. Crude reapers soln in the eighties lor 4:69 apiece, 10-day a complete self-binder can be bough.. t , r Paraffin used to be I.- a mlloL? before tho war it was only a . The result or m-cre-astd p: eduction, that to say, and t’io economies which it effects, is inevitably in tho long run increased consumption and lower prices. It appear, flow olh' '<-d i lives tigs tie!! - that xu 1909 the. people

bought £120,000,000 of cotton goods where the British bought only £20,000,000. As the American population in chat year was roughly double the British, it follows that tho average American family lioiight three times as many shirts, collars, handkerchiefs, etc., as the average British family—a striking confirmation of Mr. Scripps’ statement. They did this quite simply, because they could afford to do it: because the shirts were cheap enough and their wages were high enough. Ifafter the war, our industries could so remodel themselves that tho maximum output which science, good management, and improved machinery can give may bo attained, tho same result Would follow. It will be possible to pay wages far in excess of any formerly paid, and at tho same time to sell tho product at lower prices than ever before. High wages and low prices of commodities must clearly go together; for if prices rise the worker does not gain by tho riso in wages. The example of America has proved that treble wages need not mean treble prices. Why should what is true in America be false here?

f Pre-war conditions (To be continued.)