The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1913. THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY.

Southland Times, Issue 17348, 20 May 1913, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1913. THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY.

That some of the manufacturing enterprises of the dominion are not flourishing as they should is a matter of common knowledge, and any reliable facts that throw light on the matter call for very serious consideration. The problem to be solved is one that presents many .difficulties, for it is first of all difficult to arrive at the causes of stagnation or decline, and in the next place when these causes are ascertained it is not the easiest thing in the world to suggest a remedy. Mr J. A. Frostick, of Christchurch, who is a manufacturer himself and who has devoted a great deal of time to the study of the question, has put on record in one of the Christchurch papers some figures that will set readers thinking. It is significant that the proportion of our population which finds employment in industries is diminishing. Though there has been an increase in the number of employees the increase has not kept pace with the population. The number of workers employed increased from 39,444 in 1901 to 41,870 in 1911, but in the latter year only one person In every twenty-four was engaged in industrial employment as compared with one person in every nineteen in 1901. Had the proportion of 1901 been maintained the number of workers in 1911 would have been 52,528 instead of 41,870, so that on a population basis there has been an actual shrinkage in industrial employment of 10,658 persons. And the use of machinery cannot be offered as an explanation of the failure of our industries to maintain their labour employing capacity. Between 1901 and 1900 the proportion of workers engaged in industries remained stationary, despite the fact that in that period the new plant and machinery brought into employment was valued at £1.000,000 more than the new plant installed in the five years from 1906 to 1911. in | which period of five years the number of workers employed in industries proportionately diminished. 'The amount of money invested in industries increased from £7,000,000 in 1901 to £12,600,000 in 1911. The value of ma-

terial consumed increased from seven millions to more than thirteen million pounds. With these large increases in the capital invested and in the quantity of, raw material consumed how have the benefits been shared by the workers and the employers? The average wage of the worker has increased from £Bl to £ll3, the latter figure representing “the highest average paid to any workers under the British flag.” Between 1901 and 1906 the wages of the workers increased by 11.8 per cent. ; between 1906 and 1911 the increase was equal to 23.65 per cent. Turning now to the employers’ side it is to be observed that in 1896 the expenditure of £5,183.115 produced goods of a selling value of £7.807.085, Had the same ratio between expenditure and production been maintained in 1911 goods with a selling value of £27,400,000 would have been produced, but the actual value of the manufactures was £22,112„455, so that in 1911 employers with money invested in industries were proportionately £5.183,000 worse off, notwithstanding an increase of 140 per cent, in the value of property and plant. It is quite clear from these figures that there is something seriously wrong with the dominion’s industries. They are not in a healthy condition, .and consequently they are not providing for the employment 'of the population as they should do. .If our industries were relatively as prosperous as they were in 1896 the population of the dominion could be increased by 10,658 competent workers and all of them could find employment in factories and workshops. The decline of employment and production seems to be due to an increase in the cost of production combined with a shrinkage in the value of the output. This shrinkage is due either to a lesser produce from a given quantity of labour or to a fall in prices. Whatever the explanation is the fact cannot be disputed that for his expenditure on wages and raw' material the manufacturer is now getting a product diminished in value by 20 per cent, as compared with 1896. While our industries have failed to respond to the increase in population and to the Improvement in local markets, imports have increased by leaps and bounds. In 1901 the imports per head amounted to a|>out £l4 14s ; in 1911 the value of imports represented £lB 12s per hea4The people have been buying from the foreign manufacturer instead of from the local manufacturer. We have been supporting 10,658 workers in some other part of the world instead of adding them on to our own population. It is impossible to regard the position without some apprehension, and Mr Frostick is justified in contending that “it is just about time the people began to think for themselves and see upon what course they are going.”