“TWENTY YEARS OLD”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23118, 18 February 1937, Page 2

“TWENTY YEARS OLD”

10 THE EDITOR Sir,—On looking through the advertisements in the papers I have noticed that youths are offering to pay pounds down to anyone securing them permanent employment. 1 can go further and say that I offered more money than they have offered to a Arm that was requiring a youth. I promised also that my son would pay back more out of the big wages the firm would be compelled to give him. so that he could gel more experience in his line ol trade. This, I was told, could not bo done, as it would expose the Arm to a heavy penalty. My son is 21 years of age and, owing to the depression, was kept at school till he was 18. He cannot now get back into his trade, owing to the high rate of pay. I do not blame the firms concerned, as he is still in the learning stage, having had just over two years’ experience and is not worth a mqn’s wage. But why should youths like he—for there are others in plenty in a like position—be debarred from trade or condemned to pick and shovel work for the rest of their lives? Many of them are quite unfit for that class of work. A permit should be granted to youths to allow them to finish or learn a trade, no 1 matter what their ages may be. It was through no fault of theirs that the depression came, so why punish them? I have been given to understand that there are positions vacant where these youths could be employed.—l am, etc., Justice. TO THE EDITOR Sir, —May I commend to “Simple Simon” the advice I once received when as a youth I took a course in homiletics—viz.: “Always have a good beginning and a logical and forceful conclusion ’’? , . , “ Simple Simon ” commences his letter by introducing something quite irrelevant to the subject of my first letter, and then he accuses me, together with “Socrates,” of (1) writing letters that “are pure political propaganda”; (2) of superficiality; and (3) of being “up against both sustenance and superannuation.” . Now, if “ Simple Simon will kindly read again both my letters he will find the contradiction of each of his three accusations. If, however, in his rather purposeless letter he is angling to get me to make an accusation against the Labour Government I most willingly swallow bait and all, and here is my accusation, and indeed, Mr Editor—if it were not that I know I am asking something too much of you—l would suggest you put the words in black type. The Labour Government has deliberately, purposely, and designedly closed the door of industry and commerce to the 20 years old—and, indeed, I might also say, to most youths of 18 and 19 years as well. That was the bone of my contention, and the only idea of propaganda was that some abler pen might take the matter up with a view to awakening the “knights of industry” to a sense of the injustice being inflicted on the 20-year-olds. , „ Superficial. Indeed! How much deeper would “ Simple Simon ” have me go? I was writing from the depths of despair on behalf of my first-born, my eldest son, and even though he is 20 years, he is still to me my boy, or as I more frequently and affectionately term him, lad. Both these terms which appear so offensive to “Simple Simon ” are, after all, merely synonyms for youth. , , . This lad, when only 19, worked in the face of a gold mine and earned men’s wages, so that he was nearly as clever as “Simple Simon” himself, but neither he nor I (I mean the lad) want that. Any fool possessed of brawn and a modicum of Intelligence can to-day earn a man’s wage. The desire of this lad is to get something better than pick and shovel work, for in addition to muscle and strength, he has in a marked degree the three real requirements, intelligence, integrity, and industry, and, with these plus thrift, what more, may i Qclr ?e Will “Simple Simon” tell me why, by all that is fair and reasonable, any Government should have the right to stifle his ambition?—l am, etc., Never Again.