New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-03-20
WAGFS-.1 CONTRAST.

Professor Leone Levi has made report on
wages paid in Great Britain in 1884, which The
Joudon Economist seems disposed to criticlse
sharply. One can understand that his state
mepts. though in the line Of his previous in
yestigations in 1867 and again in 1878. are not
altogether satisfactory in their results to British
readers. In brief, his conclusions are tha'
10 200 900 persons of both sexes earn wages
averaging 1914 Go yearly for professional and
domestic services, $291 80 for commercial
services, only $lGS 81 for agricultural laborers,
and for the industrial laborers, 6,GOO,OOO IN
number, or more than half of the whole, only
S22G 20 yearly, making the average for all
classes OF workers 1907 so. Though this paper
WAS prepared by Professor Levi at the request
of Sir Arthur Bass, for use at n recent confer
ence on the subject OF wages, and was intended
TO show, and does show, an advance in the aver
age ratio Of wages since 1897, amounting to
1919 per cent nevertheless, the results are
criticised rs unsatisfactory. The increase for a
perod of seventeen years Is small 1t is insig-
niiicant in comparison with the increase at
tanned IN other countries and the average rate
of wages paid is low. In this country, for ex-
ample the average wages of farm labor, accord
ing to Mr.. Dodge, the statistician of the Bureau
of Agriculture, are not less than $25S yearly,
even including the coore1 labor at the South.
The average wages earned in manufacturing
and mechanical occupations, Notwithstanding
the fact that considerable proportion of
women and children are included among the
workers, exceed $3.50 yearly. 1t is not surpris-
ing that The London Economist is anxious in
advance to break the force OF such comparisons
as this paper invites.
Its criticism, though elaborate, does not ap-
pear altogether effective 1t objects that the
basis of Professor Lewis calculations ia not
known, though he states that the figures have
been obtained from employers and wage
earners themselves in answer to circulars. The
Economist criticises with much force the COM
parson between 1867 and 1884, but its sugges-
tons only tend to show that the Professors
combinations for the latter date were more com
plete and accurate than for the former. The
fact is recognized that the inquiry cannot bs
solved, rs many imagine it can. by mere in
spection of census returns, and the value Of re-
suits reached must therefore depend mainly
upon the character and reputation of the in
yestigator, who is conceded by The Economist
to be one of our ablest and. most painstaking
statlstlclans." LII Is certaih that Professor Lew
has not overlooked the unfavorable conclusions
likely to be drawn from comparison of the
wages paid in this country with those paid in
England according to his report, and it is
difficult to resist the conclusion that his esti-
mate is at least as likely to be correct as that of
any of his critics.
In brief, then, it appears that labor in Eng
land has gained in wages not more than IL per
cent in seventeen years, while labor In this
country has advanced in wages according to the
report of the Massachusetts, Bureau of
Statistics, $3.50 per cent since 1850. 1t ap-
pears that the average paid in Great Britain is
less than half the admitted average paid to
labor in this country. In Massachusetts, ac-
cording to Mr.. Wright reports, the average
| in 1888 was SO II weekly, or $50S o. year
| An admitted decline of 10 Der cent in 1884