The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-01-24
DO PROTECTIVE TAR
IFS RAISE WAGES2


To the Editor of The Jersev Citv Ne,cs:-
The chief claim made for protective
tariff is that it raises wages. Protectionists
themselves do not agree in their explana-
ions of how a protective tariff raises
wages. The contention, for example, that it
does raise wages is different from the claim
thai a tariff is needed to equalize the differ
| ence in labor cost, since the second conten-
| ton implies the existence of a higher labor
cost due to causes wholly or partially INDIE
pendent of q tariff. And in spite of their
haste to disavow this implication, this is
what protectionists mean, If they mean any
thing, when they talk of the necessity Of a
| tariff to e~qualize difference in labor cost here
and abroad. Evidently labor cost does not
mean days wages, but piece wages. To COM
| pare the cost of labor by relative differeneein
wages paid, by day or week, though a trick
| common enough with the New York Press,
and the preternaturally solemn person whose
intellectual ability has lately been magni-
fed by the large majority cast for him as
Governor of Ohio, yields us no data OF value
| assisting to a conclusion. But to the adj
| vocates of a tariff as necessary to equallze
difference in labor cost, it is sufficient to
| point to these two facts =
First. Constant decrease an cost OF tabor
in the United States, relatively and abso-
Sotutely.
Second. Constant increase in the. tariff.
But, says our good friend, the inquiring
republican, who is seeking information, and
| too apparent absurdities of the New York
Press, is it not true that if countries where
wages are low are allowed to send in
their products free of duty SO
much American labor will be displaced,
SO much industry transferred to foreign
49, - - x.,1l 4, go a;%tar Is an.,fnaltad
to remain idle or receive the lower wages
| paid in the foreign countries, from which
these goods come? At first glance there
| seems to be but one answer to this. But
looking carefully over the industrial world,
we discover that what we would naturally
| suppose would occur is precisely what
doesn't happen. The countries where wages
are lowest are not flooding the high grade
countries with goods, and have little or no
export trade. The countries where wages are
| the highest, on the other hand, are doing the
flooding, and, strangely enough, the coun-
tries they flood are the countries where wages
are low. In England wages are higher than
they are in Continental Europe: the barriers
are down; why do not Germany. Italy,
Russia flood Great Britainz On the
other hand, what is the export trade of
Russia, China, Mexica Inaias Why do
flooding into England, if they are able, and
the protectionists' contention be true that
tariffs are needed to protect high wage coun-
tries from low wage countries!
Curiously enough, the proteetionist on
the continent of Europe reverses his claim in
a way that, to those who are not familiar
| with it, will seem truly astonishing. Travel
| where you will on the Continent OF Europe,
| everywhere you go you will hear protection
urged not against the lower wages of other
! countries, but against the higher wages of
| England. And how true it is that it is low
wages that need to be protected against high
wages, we may see if we will stop to reflect.
High wages are a positive source OF strength,
not of weakness. Cheap labor is paid less.
but costs more. 1t is not alone the Indian
farmer living on his few cents a day whose
wheat, and maize, and corn are poured into
the consuming parts; but the American
farmer whose wage are many times greater,
who mingles his grain with that Of the ryot
of India in every foreign harbor.
Let me lay particular stress on the actual
cheapness of American labor. We hear
much of the American standard OF wages,
and the necessity of maintaining it. But
the real question of Importance in the con-
troversy as to whether We are able to compete
with the world, is not the rate of wages
but the cost of labor in proportion to the
product turned out. The two main elements
entering into the cost OF a manufactured pro-
duct are labor and raw material. A
! high standard of wages existing with low cost
of materials, may give us an immense ad-
vantage over countries where the standard
| of wages Is low, and we find that in those
industries in this country in which high
wages are maintained the product turned
out involves a lower cost OF labor than in
countries where wages are low.
For example, Mr.. Robert p. Porter has
| shown the deplorable condition and low
wages of the iron workers of the black dis
trict of England. But Mr.. Sergeant, the
great hardware manufacturer of New
Haven, says he makes the same goods pro-
duced there at a lower cost of labor, not
~withstanding the higher wages he pays.
So, too, it has been shown, time
and time again, that while wages
are higher in the Massachusetts, cotton fac
tories than in the English factories, the cost
of labor that enters into the production of
each yard of cloth is decidedly less. This is
the testimony of both Mr.. Blaine and Mr..
Evarts, while occupying the position of
Secretary of State, and commenting upon
the comparative rates of wages, as disclosed
by consular reports.
The reason that wages in this country are
higher chan they are abroad, and the cost of
labor cheaper, is due to a variety of causes,
chief among which are our vast natural re-
sources and scanty population. They are
due also to the superiority of American
methods. In estimating the difference
in wages of American and English
workmen we must bear in mind that Eng
land has, if not the largest, certainly the
most costly army in the world, a great and
expensive navy, an established church to
which all must contribute, while here you
contribute only if you feel like it; an expen-
sive royal family and a costly civil list, and
a vast national debt. Labor in England
pays all of this in taxes SO adjusted as to
bear with especial Hardship upon the poor.
There are only $4,000, 900 people to pay it;
here there are nearly T0,089y000 to pay a
much more moderate tax burden.
The cheapness of and makes wage
higher here. Agricultural land fifty miles
out Of London rents for G5 per acre per
month. Think of agricultural land fifty
miles out OF New York renting for any such
sum!
In all the theories which o put forth in de
fence of a protective tariff there is no more
baseless contention than that with reference
to wages. 1t is necessary to bear in mind
that wages are lowest everywhere where
there is nc commercial enterprise, practical
arts, modern appliances, technical education.
The wages of India, the lowest in the world,
relatively to the efficiency of, labor are no
lower than elsewhere, and may indeed be
higher. The wages of the United States, re-
latiyely to the efficiency of labor here, may
not be higher than elsewhere, and as a mat
ter of fact in a great and increasing number
of industries are not SO high.