THE RIGHT WAY TO GO TO WORK

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 24 February 1931, Page 8

THE RIGHT WAY TO GO TO WORK

(To tbe Editor) Sir.—To reduce the wages of the worker is a distinct retrograde measure, and the exact opposite of Mr Seddon’s policy which worked. wonders and hurt none. If is also inconsistent with tl\e idea in the mind of the late lamented Sir Joseph Ward. Directly he got the power he increased the pay of the men upon relief works as everybody knows. Mr Seddon’s idea was that the worker should have a margin over and above his expenditure. Surely this was wise. It brings us hack to Mr Micawber’s famous Economic Confession of Faith: “A small income £2O; annual expenditure £l9 19s lid ; result, happiness. Annual income £2o annual expenditure £2O Os Id ; result, misery.” The reduction of wages will not bring happiness to the worker and his family, but rather the reverse. If, instead he got a rise of say 2s per day, he would easily bo able to afford another extra small loaf per day. Here in Nelson, for argument, wo have, say. 2000 families. That would mean 2000 loaves, for which 13 sacks of flour would be required—9l sacks per week of 7 days. (The bakers work on Sunday, 1 believe.) A master baker who employs, say, 10 men, each man baking 69 loaves, means an output of 690 per day, 4830 per week. This will mean increased profit for the baker and more work for the miller, and, the wheat grower. The grocer would also sell more goods if the worker's exchequer was in a more satisfactory state. I was surprised to learn some months ago that from tlie time the slump had made its presence felt there had been a distinct falling off in the sales of groceries. Luxury lines particularly had been largely cut. If the workers have the money to spend more groceries will be purchased, and the same applies to butchers’ meat, and to cloth ing, drapery, and furniture and household furnishings. The proposal to dock the workers’ pay is definite and clear. Mr Forbes fervently hopes that the prices of commodities will come down in order to balance this reduction in wages. But neither he nor anyone else can give us

any positive guarantee that prices will come down, lie only “hopes” that such will be the case. And even if wages did come down, where would the benefit come in? The reduced prices, even if we got them, would not balance the reduction in pay. And in a very short time quite possibly the present wages reduction would lie found insufficient. We should then have a further wage reduc Hon and a further , prices reduction. Where would this finally land us? What we need is more buying power, not less ; more money being circulated, not less. This wage cut- stands to benefit one person, and one person only—the man of money, who will bo able to get his work done at a much cheaper rate than under the former regime. I ask seriously, can we in equity and with a good conscience afford to reduce the worker’s wage?—l am, etc., OBSERVER. Nelson, 2lst February.