The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-04-02

respective Of any differences In skill and
dextority. II turns out, however, upon In
auiry. that In q large body OF men, all hav-
ing spent some years in learning trade,
there is not so much variety in performance
that equal rates of wages for the time
worked may not be paid without fragrant
injustice. At all events, this Is the distinct
afilrmance Of Mr.. LATTGMER, who, in tho
case Of Manchester. has made ii his business
to get at the facts. More suggestive
still is his admission, which Is re-
pcatcd by Mr.. John MORLEY and
others, that fundamental question
whether workman's wages are adequate
TO sustain him properly must be taken into
account more faithfully than II has yet been,
IL the great labor problems are to be solved.
And here IL is suggested that the employer
In the parable who paid the eleventh hour
men a full days wage may have been right
after all. on the ground that penny was
the minimum cost Of u days sustonancc.
1t would follow that modern operatives who
oppose payment by results and insist on
uniform wages are wiser than their brethren
OF Judca. 1t may be that In asking n regu-
lar daily stipend for each and all, they are
site to support the average workman in such
n condition OF life as may possess some de-
gree OF comfort and develop some feeling OF
seli-respcct.
But the greatest novelty, and what on the
lips Of an English economist sounds like
rank heresy, is the grave doubt now cast
on the advantages supposed to flow from
the division OF labor. While 1t Is granted
that greater dexterity and far larger yield
are obtained at the outset, IL IL suggested
chat these benefits will be materially less
encd, IL not extinguished, in the second or
third generation OF mon brought up under
the system. Nor can we dispute that the
tedium and monotony ensuing from the con-
slant concentration Of body and mind upon
one necessarily repeated result may beget n
carelcssness OF manner and disregard OF ex-
cellcnce, II not a total suppression Of mental
interest. or course this argument is lcvellcd
at the employer who is keenly concerned in
the quality as well as quantity Of the mar
ketable stock of work power transmitted
from year TO year On the other hand, the
workman himself dislikes division OF labor,
for the obvious reason that an operative
toilng in single productive function be-
chine, that is, and less Of a man; and much
more. therefore. at the mercy OF his EN-
ploycr. Their position is not only justified
by some recent writer's on economic science,
but one OF them ascribes to the want OF
variety in employment, and the consequent
absence Of a healthy excitement of the men.
tai faculties, tho increasing demand for ar.
tifcal stimulants, remarked throughout
Great Britain.
Whether any OF the views here outlined
will in our day control the governing classes
in England and shape legislation may be
doubted. But II Is certainly significant
that in the country Of ADAM SMITH, OF NAL
THUS. and RICARDO, In the land where the
so-called iron law OF wages was invented
ideas savoring so strongly Of revolt from the
old principles should find countenance among
men OF established reputation and access u
the foremost organs OF public opinion.