Waterbury evening Democrat., 1892-08-18
Wages and Labor Cost.

The more one knows about Republican
protection the less one believes in it, and a
thorough knowledge of the subject would
put to flight the last particle of faith in
this humbug still left among the people of
the United States. The most absurd pre-
tense as to protection is the pretense that
it enables protected manufacturers to
pay the difference between the wages Of
American and foreign workingmen. 1t
does not; because in most protected indus
tries there is no such difference as the Re-
publican protectionists pretend to discover.
The fact is that in most of these industries
American labor is the cheapest in the
world.
You will not believe this if you read
only Republican newspapers, for they take
care to compare only the day wages of
Americans with the day wages of foreign
ers, and in most trades, whether protected
or not, American day wages are higher
than European day wages. 1t is easy
enough, however, to show that this is not
fair method of comparison. One often
hears hustling housewife say that she'd
rather do a piece of work herself than
leave it to careless child or an Qnskillful,
lazy hired girl. Every farmer knows that
many good hand is cheap at double the
wages of an idle, shiftless fellow. The
woman who knows how to do things finds
it cheaper and less wearing to mind and
body to do them herself than to have them
done by person who will do them so badly
that they must be done over. The farmer
would rather pay thirty-fve dollars a
month to some hands than twenty dollars
to others. What is true of the household
and the farm is true of the factory and the
world in general. There is no mystery
about this, and any man who wishes to
understand it may do SO and may come to
understand it so well that he can teach it
to others.
Charles S. Hill, a Republican protection
list employed in the department of state,
declared on oath before the tariff commits
sion that in 1872 5,250,OO0 hands in the
United States produced S., 600, 900 worth of
manufactured goods, while in the same
year 5, 140, 200 hands in England produced
only 100000 worth of goods. In other
words, American labor, measured by the
amount it produced, was worth nearly dou-
BILE what English labor was worth. Thus
the American manufacturer in that year
would have paid nearly 100 per cent. more
wages than the English manufacturer and
still have been better off as to profits.
The New York Press, a high protection
list paper, declared a few years ago that the
labor cost in a ton of paper made at
Schuylcrvillc, N. Y, was $3.50 less than
the labor cost Of n ton of paper made in
England. The American paper maker,
however, was paid an average of 1896 per
year, while the average of the English
paper maker was considerably less. Thirty
seven men at Schuylerville produced IL 900
pounds of paper daily, or an average of
nearly thirty tons each. The average daily
product of English paper makers was only
thirteen tons each.
According to The American Economist,
organ of the Republican protectionists, the
| average product of each manufacturing
operative in the United States was, in 1850
81 Jos, and in $780, 50, 045. The average an
nual wages in the one case was 1855 per
year, in the other $3.50 per year. That is.
| labor received % per cent. of the product
| in 1850 when the tariff averaged "a per
cent, and labor received only "a per cent.
of the product in 1880, when the tariff
averaged 48 per cent. Yet the tariff was
| raised to raise wages.
Let every Democrat and every man who
| thinks of becoming Democrat get a firm
| grip on the idea that wages should not be
compared by days pay, but by the amount
of labor cost in given product. Don't let
| any Republican protectionist fool you with
| talk about the pauper labor of Europe.
| Remember ours is the cheapest labor in
| the world because it is the best.