The Colonial Standard of Living, Thrift, and Yellow Agony.

Fair Play, Volume I, Issue 26, 1 October 1894, Page 32

The Colonial Standard of Living, Thrift, and Yellow Agony.

(By Fabian Black.)

Of all the sophisms, quackeries and absurdities by which ignorant respectability parades its own shallow-mindedness, and deliberately insults the intelligence of the working people, the theory of thrift as a panacea or remedy for poverty is the most frequent and irritating. When the advice is tendered by a potbellied, shiny-hatted and bejewelled plutocrat, a lawn-sleeved bishop, or. a Conservative editor, it may be considered.natural, appropriate and harmless. The distrust with which admonitions from such sources are regarded render them ineffective, therefore not worth comment. Bun when, at a meeting of the ’orny ’auded, this rotten old fallacy is resurrected and flaunted in their faces by one of themselves, who advises the emulation of Chinese characteristics (one cannot say virtues) without having a brick thrown at him, it shows this hoary and many-lived old fraud is being partially swallowed, and must be exposed again. There can be no doubt that the individual who lives up to the last penny of his income, and spends in drink and dissipation what ought to be put by for a rainy day, is not a good citizen, and injures himself and his fellow-creatures. Under our present social conditions “thrift,” from an individual point of view, is desirable, though often not possible. It is, however, one of the ironies of fate, aud in accordance with the “damnable nature of things” that what;benefits the individual injures his class—and,' indeed, the "whole community —consequently, by reaction, injures the individual himself. It may seem paradoxical to state that the thrifty workman really benefits more from the extravagance or intemperance of his fellow-man than from his own abstinence or sobriety. The fact that wages always tend to a minimum, the limit of which is the standard of living to which classes are accustomed, or is general, will not be disputed. The thrift of an individual consists of a reduction of his standard of living below the average. He saves, or'abstains from using, an amount which others consume. Immediately such a reduction became general his advantage would be lost, as wages would soon settle down to the reduced standards Even without the existence of a large unemployed class competition would soon effect that.

. The theory which is plausibly laid lown is that the money which the abstemious save is available for investment, and will supplement their income by returning them interest. Now investment and interest are absolutely dependent oh consumption. So, universal thrift, even if it did not reduce wages immediately; would curtail the opportunities for investment, as everybody would be consuming less. Take a. brief illustration. The standard of living of the colonial public could, no doubt, be reduced considerably by not taking holiday trips—travelling only under immediate necessity—and discarding the habit of theatre-going. Both of these items may be considered, if not extravagances, not actually necessary to the maintenance of life. Let us suppose that the average annual expenditure is .£lO per head, adult. If everyone unanimously agreed to save the amount they had hitherto spent in this manner, what would happen ? First, the railway returns would show a large deficit, and extra taxation would be involved to pay the. interest on the money borrowed for their construction. Steamship companies would either wind up or discontinue running. The Opera House and Theatre would be closed, and the shareholders' dividends minus. Omnibusses, cabs, carriages would lie rotting, the streets crowded with unemployed people, the Government ajt their wits’ end to raise revenue, and the ugly words repudiation. and national bankruptcy staring us straight in the face. At the same time the saved amount could not be profitably invested in Steamship Company shares, Opera House shares, private cab or omnibus businesses. The advocates of the *• Thrift policy ”■ forget that investment and industry are subject to consumption. Tf no one Wanted food, clothes or shelter there

would be no employment for anyone. Any. reduction of t'he standard of living is a step in that direction . The futility and absurdity, of the thrift’policy can be seen by a superficial glance at our present industrial and commercial conditions which give practical proof of the above illustration. We find the same people who preach the doctrine to the poor are in actual life most persistently engaged in encouraging the transgression of their own pet theory. The economic conditions compel them not only to press the working people to spend their wages as fast as they are earned, but to provide special temptations and facilities to induce them to run into debt. Houses, land, pianos, sewing machines, furniture, clothing are being offered and pressed for sale to an extent which stretches the credit system to a bursting point, and involves considerable risk to vendors. Which often produces the modern anomolous spectacle of the prosperous soft goods merchant—blinded with class prejudice—dilating on the extravagance of the masses, ridiculing their aspirations, whilst he is not only absolutely dependent on the follies he condemns, but their moderate curtailment would involve him in ruin. Wherever the standard of living is low, there the people are degraded and debased. It is all very well to trot out the Chinaman as an example of thrift. But what is thrift ? True thrift we take to be the following out of such action and conduct as will tend to preserve, sustain, and develop human life. As an ideal type of humanity the Chinaman certainly does , not stand out as a shining example ; and God' forbid we should imitate him. In the interests of the sacred rights of “Proputty,” we forbid the working classes to live herded together twelve or fourteen in a room. In the interests of “ capitalism" we implore them not to ruin the soap factories and the textile industries. And in the interests of the parson, the registry office, common decency, and morality, we command them not to wreck the very life of this young nation by emulating the Chinese example of “ common property in women,” and other reputed abominations. Thrift of this sort does not promote or sustain life ; it destroys it. Another strange contradiction is that of the man who is popularly supposed to have been thrifty, i.e., the man who has accumulated property, and who has in innumerable cases been improvident all through life in taking more risk himself and throwing a good deal on society. How many cases are there in New Zealand where the welfare of the home, the training, education, health of the children, the duty of making provision in case of death or accident, have all been neglected for the purpose of satisfying an insane desire to acquire a “ proprietary right” in “slumland” for a ramshackle building and site utterly inadequate to the demands of a growing family. The truly thrifty workman is generally stigmatized as extravagant. At the present rate of wages, let any ordinary workman do his duty to his family and society by insuring his .life, joining a provident society, making his home decent and pleasant, improving his own mind, and endeavouring to develop the character of his children, so that they may make useful members of society; and he will not have much money to invest in “ bricks and mortar,” or be able to pose as a brilliant example of the much lauded “thrifty man.” So far from universal, thrift being conducive to general prosperity, it is not only, obviously impossible, but any steps taken to adopt this policy must lead direct to national calamity and ruin. “ The only way for all to be well off is for all to work; not all to save."