DO MACHINES REALLY CAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18787, 17 June 1929, Page 8

DO MACHINES REALLY CAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT?

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—Your anti-Labour correspondent, “ Democrat,” in his sneering reply to one of Mr Howard’s articles, would have your readers believe that “ machines do not cause unemployment,’* for he declares that Mr Howard’s statement that they do so is “rubbish.” “At the worst,” “ Democrat" argues, “ machines only remove employment from one thing to another.” Do they? In older industrialised countries such as America, Britain and Europe, his contention may to a large extent be true; but in this Dominion, where most of our modern machinery is imported, “ Democrat's ” theory is far from correct. The writer well remembers the period some four to five decades ago when American farming machines began to displace the scythe and the sickle. How many harvest labourers lamented their depleted harvest earnings when every previous summer and autumn they had always looked forward to gaining big cheques. Did those machines increase or decrease local labour? The writer also remembers the vast unemployment problem of those years, and its soup kitchens. And nowadays many great-. ; ly improved types of the same laboursavers are still being imported. Do these machines make for more local i work or less?

Take imported milking and shearing machines. Do they cause more or less work on dairy and sheep farms? Also consider the numerous imported machines now used on joad, sewer and building contracts, displacing some thirty to forty men. No more big mortar-board gangs, or processions of men with hods running up and down ladders. Does all this labour-saving machinery increase or reduce Dominion employment? Take factory work, and what do we find? Now lying before the writer is a picture of a recently invented leather-working machine (operated by one girl), capable of making 600 pairs of shoes in eight hours, which was lately exhibited at the Leather Fair in London. Supposing this machine were imported into a New Zealand factory, would it “ increase human wants and so increase employment ” —a la “ Democrat ” —or otherwise? Some time ago a local firm advertised the fact that they had installed a machine that did in one minute work that formerly took an hour to do by hand. Was that machine imported in order to “ remove employment from one thing to some other thing,” or simply to “ reduce labour costs ” ? The writer has some more queries to put regarding “ Democrat’s ” sneers about “ arbitration ” and “ idling ” and ! “ leisurely ” employment, which, with your kind permission, shall be answered in a future letter.—l am, etc., LABOURITE.