ARE WAGES TOO HIGH?

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15002, 25 May 1912, Page 8

ARE WAGES TOO HIGH?

COMPLAINT OF THE FARMER

LABOUR DRAFTS TO CITIES.

THE COST OF LIVING PROBLEM.

"That we, as primary producers, view with alarm tho tendency of tho present artificially high wages in the cities to withdraw labour from agricultural pursuits, and also recognise that' tho farming industry cannot pay the necessary high wage to compote with other induotrieo, and wo fear so long as thin state of things exists tho rural population cannot materially increase." *

A pessimistic tone prevailed during tho discussion of the above remit at the Farmers' Union Conference yesterday afternoon, and several speaker* iiuuHfcod, waraingly, that thero wwi a had time coming. ( Captain Colbock (Manurewa) Raid that the union should attempt to do (something in the way of preventing the continual increase in tho cost of production. There wero going to bo attempts to revise tho tariff, and that meant increases and never decreases. The Government talked about reducing the cost of the necessaries of life, but what were the necessaries of life ? On

the lost occasion they reduced the tax on cornflour, but increased it on a dozen other articles. - He thought that clothing .Was just as much a ,necessary of life as food. Tho police would not run a man in if he -were starving, but they would were ho undressed. If a man had no home to go to they would also run him in. There was an attempt in the country to create good times by legislation, and he thought it was bound to end in failure. They could not fix prices by legislation, any more than they could fix the weathor. The farmers, were not grumbling about the high wage, but about artificially high wages. The farmers were the people who were really suffering. The present system forced up the wage without benefit to anyone." \ It was a system they' should do away with.

Mr. G. Mclnnes seconded the motion for the adoption of the remit. Captain Colbeck, he said, had not exaggerated; he had stated the facts plainly. Protection would not do for the country at all, and it would severely affect the fanners.

Mr. Gerald Peacocke said that the crying out about high -wages in the- cities was not calculated to effect any real good. Labourers in the country had a big advantage over labourers in the city. He believed that the farmers were suffering unnecessarily from protection on. certain goods. Mr. S. 'A. Brown said he thought the farmers were to blame entirely for anything they were suffering. They were the ob os who should benefit by high wages, but they did hot through lack of cohesion. Wore the workers paid real high wages, they would be able to pay higher wages for the products of the farmer. Freetrade and protection were like sunshine and rain; sometimes they wanted one, and sometimes the other. He was an out-and-out supporter of neither. Mr. D. Hamilton said that the remit was rather vague, but the conference, he thought, was in favour of the principle it set out.

Mr. J. E. Makgill, vice-president, said that an outcry had been heard that they exported their mutton, and raised the prices in New Zealand. That was not so as far as the producers were concerned outside combination might do. so. He was in favour of the highest possible wages, but not artificially high wages. ;Mr. A. A. Ross said that. the trouble was that they had been fostering an arti- 5 ficial isystem,. Restrictions had been put on, and labour and capital had been diverted from the most profitable industries. It . was only natural under the present conditions of things that the cost of living should go up. He believed too that tho men in the town suffered more than those in the country. The system had no benefits and had meant a great loss to the community. The remit was unanimously passed.