BRITAIN'S INDUSTRIAL PROSPERITY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXXI, 22 February 1916, Page 8

BRITAIN'S INDUSTRIAL PROSPERITY.

, In one of its reviews of the year 1915 -the London Daily Telegraph dealt with the abounding industrial prosperity of Uritain. The year closed with the general average of wages standing high-1 «r, and the percentage of unemployment less, than at any part? of Britain's history—a result rjartly of the taking away of vast numbers of workmen from civil persuits, and partly of the enormous demand for munitions of ■war. The Labor Gazette some time ago, printed a table showing the number or work-people affected by the rise in wages. These in September number ed 4,446,000 in alb trades, the most important being coal mining (870,000, men), engineering and shipbuilding (624,000), textile trades (414,000), transport (142,000), and iron and steel (123, 000). To these 4£ million men extra wages were being paid amounting to £763,800 a year. The Telegraph es-^ timated that the advances made since -September would increase that figure to • £1,000,000 a week, and that advances made in other trades not included in the Board of Trade's returns would amount to another quarter of a million. This would bring the addition to the wage bill of the country to the huge total of £65,000,000 a year. I The unemployment returns are very i striking. In January, 1914, there were' 25 men unemployed for every 1000 men in employment, and this proportion was fairly constant until war broke out. | In August, 1014, the figure lear>t up to 10 per 1000; inSeptember it- was 59 per 1000, and then the ratio began to fall. It fell steadily and continuously throughout; 1915, until in November last the ratio was only 6 per thousand, j In the "insured trades much the | same figuros are recorded. In these; trades 54,736 men were unemployed in January pf last year; in November all but 17,724 of those had been absorbed. Though there was much industrial unrest during 1915, the strike statistics show a great improvement on the figures for 1914. If we leave out the July figures in each case we find that j the work days lost through strikes i and disputes numbered in 1914, from i January to November, ove v eight mil- ■ lion days, and in 1915. for the same j period, less than 1| million days. If we ' include July •in each case—in July last I year occurred the serious strike in! South Wales—the loss was, in 1914 about 9£ million days, and in ICIS less than 3 millions.