DRIFT TO THE CITIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20116, 29 November 1928, Page 13

DRIFT TO THE CITIES.

REALLY A CHEEFUI. SIGN. VIEWS OF AN ECONOMIST. DEVELOPING LIFE OF TOWNS. "I decline to be alarmed at the drift to the cities; it is a cheerful sign, and I would be alarmed if the reverse were the case," said Professor A. G. Fisher, professor of economics at Otago University, in a lecture on "The Bogey of the Urban Drift," to the Economic Society last evening. Mr. A. G. Lunn presided.

The lecturer said that while he had not read all the speeches of about 200 candidates at the recent general election, ho was aware that, although they differed on almost everything else, there was almost complete unanimity in deploring "the drift to the towns." The thesis he would attempt to defend was that the movement was inevitable, desirable, and proof that economic progress was continuing in New Zealand. Blame for the tendency fcad been laid on the shoulders of the Hon. A. D. McLeod, Minister of Lands, on the Arbitration Court and the "lure of the city." Others had said the city-ward trend indicated the moral fibre of the younger generation had not the strength and quality of that of the pioneers, None cama near the mark.

A World-wide Movement. This proportionate movement of population was world-wide. It persisted in Great Britain as in Germany, in the United States as in Canada, South Africa, Russia and India. Common discussion on the matter introduced many side-issues such as the organisation of city life, specialisation in trades, and unemployment, but the real question was what proportion of the people should be engaged in farming compared with those in other pursuits. It altered as a nation grew and as conditions of production and industry changed. New Zealand's growth was likened by the lecturer to the improving situation of a Robinson Crusoe. The csstaway, at first spending 100 per cent, of his time on securing and producing food, later, when ho was better provided, naturally spent less effort in that way and mora in obtaining better shelter, clothing, :n making implements, and amusing himself. So it was with a nation—with New Zealand.

Farmer Should Not Complain. It was economically sound that as little time and energy as possible should be spent in {.uoviding foot Stuffs and raw material, consistent with the general needs and intellectual and economic progress of a people. Wherever there was too small a proportion of the people engaged in any one occupation, their services were in greater demand. Their remuneration became higher., The farmer, while not nearly so badly off as many would have ono believe, protested that his returns were not large enough. It appeared, therefore, that there were for this time being sufficient people on the land for the needs of tho country, and he failed utterly to see why the farmer, of all sections of the community, should cry out against the "drift to tho city," when more among his numbers would increase competition to hin detriment. It was regrettable that when there were so many grave problems for solution, so many people should concern themselves about something that was inevitable and desirable. Production With Less Labour.

At tho conclusion of the address a speaker said the farmer's attitude was easily understood. He, personally, knew of an instance where one settler was left on a King Country road, where there were formerly 27 Eettlers to share thq rate burden among them. Much land, too, had been permitted to revert to secondary growth as the result of the drift to the city.

Professor Fisher replied that the question of rating was a matter of adjusting local taxation —it did not affect the position nationally. As ho had said before, if sufficient was being got from the land for tho balanced needs of the people, why try to force mow people on to it when their interests might be better served :n the city? Tho need for fewer people on the land was exactly tho same as the dispensing of a curtain amount of labour in industry through the introduction of new machinery. In both cases improved methods and machinery had made possible tho production of more, with less labour. It. was no more the duty of the farmer to provide employment than it was for the manufacturer to do so. Professor H. W. Segar supported the lecturer, faying that apart from sidechannels of discussion, , the paramount fact was that fewer people on the land could now provide for tno requirements of an expanding town life in the country. Professor Fisher was accorded & vote of thanks.