THE STANDARD OF LIVING.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18349, 8 June 1931, Page 9

THE STANDARD OF LIVING.

1 _ (To the editor). ! Sir, —The question of wage cuts is 'being very much discussed- by all i classes, and naturally a great deal of ' j feeling is manifest on both sides o, I the argument. Generally speaking if the question of “cuts” is looket ' at from the wage earner's angle o. vision there is only the conviction that there is something very wrong, if not utterly unjust, in this wage ■ reducing. On the other hand vve find the propertied classes almost equally unanimous in their belief that wages must come down. They have persuaded themselves that, not only are wage reductions imperatively necessary to enable their businesses, their industrial or productive pursuits to be carried on at a profit, but that also these cuts are very much in the country’s interests as a whole. Both Labour and Capital are ready to put up a lengthy argument in support of their opposing contentions. 'But is it necessary to assume that one side must he quite rig-lit and the other quite wrong, and to choose sides accordingly? What if one reads both sides and arrives at the decision that each side logically proves its own ■case, and that, therefore, both must ho right? It is surely evident that some deeper understanding is required than that imparted by the controversy. In this respect I hope to be able to contribute something of value. In the first place I contend that from a realist’s point of view there can be absolutely no justification for the lowering of the standard of living. In a time such as the present, with the . ever-increasing application of science to production, our standard of living would rise by at least 10, perhaps 20, per cent per year if only tho economic system were to be made to function in compliance with industrial needs. The rationale of our present system is divorced from all recognition of a great fact—the fact of the adoption by industry of non-man productive power—hence the disastrous inadequacy of that system. It cannot, and never will, permit of what is required in an economic system—i.e., the absorption of all available services and the distribution of ail available goods to consumers. This system is the enemy of Industrialists and wage earners alike; both are held in the grip of a tyranny—the wage earner because his service is not really wanted, so that he is forced to offer it cheaply in order to hold his position in a world of unemployment; the industrialist, or capitalist, because he is in continual danger of losing his capital through failure in business, owing to lack of consumption due lo the restricted buying power of the wage earnof. The whole thing in a nutshell Is, then, that machines produce goods, but are unable to consume them. If the machine consumed goods it would receive wages, but seeing that it does neither, the wages it is capable of earning should be paid to humans who would then consume the excess goods which, if not so consumed, merely block the market, causing a train of business failures and capital Josses before they can be disposed of. Reasoning thus it is clear that, as increased capacity to produce is a national asset, the value of that asset should be divided among the citizens of the State in the form of new (costless)- money-—a national dividend. As above stated, such money would induce orders, which would enable the increased productive capacity made possible by the machine lo be fal y utilised; all available human labour would be absorbed; then, because of the demand for labour, wage c uners would be empowered to ask for the full amount their services wore worth. Here, then, is an absoluiely practical way of enriching all who are in need of enrichment, and the wage-earner is, therefore, right when he maintains that three is no just cause for reducing his wage. What lie rarely understands, however, is that there is no easy alternative, under the existing economic system—seeing that it automatically makes him a slave to moneyed interests. On the other hand, what those who advocate a wage reduction overlook is the ultimate hopelessness of such action, whatever its temporary effects; for of course it is evident that, following all along the same fine, the countries of the world will cut and undercut until fife for the masses becomes unendurable. To sum up, then: we see that this scientific age, according to the way we adapt ourselves to it, provides us either with the weapon of sure selfdestruction or the means to happy deliverance. Therefore, vve may look forward to good limes ahead, as regards material prosperity, only if vve concentrate on making the necessary change in our economic system.—l am, etc., R. E. HANSEN. | Orlni, June 4, 1931.