New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1896-08-26

Of our farmers and wage earners to sup
ply themselves with those things they
need has been curtailed. The farmer Gun,
indeed, purchase his clothing for less
money than twenty years ago, and trans
portation rates have, 1t is true, been
nominally reduced, bu;s the cost Of mon
ey has so increased, it takes a SO much
greater quantity of tie products OF the
farm to purchase the dollar than twenty
years ago, that the real cost to the farm lt-
er of what he buys has increased. So,
too, the wage-earner in the manufacture
ing town may buy his food and clothing
cheaper than twenty years ago, but his
chances to earn the needed dollar with
which to purchase that which he needs
has grown less and less from year to
year just as prices have fallen and as
production has become unremnnerative
| and consequently been curtailed.
1t may be remarked that rates of wa
ges have not fallen with the fall in pri-
ces, that though the farmers wheat and
the planters cotton bring but half as
much as twenty years ago. that still the
daily wage of the factory hand has not
decreased, and consequently farm pro
ducts having fallen greatly, that the cost
Of food to the wage Garner is less and
that he IS better Off Butsuch a conclu-
sion is not borne out by the palpable
facts that are passing before our eyes.
TO the fact that as prices have fallen the
struggle of the wage earning classes for
a livelihood has become mole severe, we
cannot close our eyes. The growing dis
tress of the wage-earning classes is silent
but irrefutable evidence that the gold
contractionists who claim the wage-earn-
er is benefited by falling prices are wrong.
That the wage Garner does not prosper
from falling prices is self-evident; that
he does not is due primarily to two eau
SEES: First, falling prices take away from
HIM the chance to earn the dollar; and
second, the prices at which he must buy,
fall in no such degree with the prices at
which the farmer is obliged to part with
his products or the manufacturer to sell
his goods.
That falling prices take away from the
wage learner the chance to earn the dol
lar is simply due to the fact that the con-
sumner, who is also producer, must pay
for what he buys with his products.
For instance, what the farmer buys he
must pay for with what he realizes from
his crops. The more he realizes the
more he will buy. If his crops yield
him but little profit he must lessen his
purchases, and when he lessons his pur-
chases, manufacturers must curtail pro-
duction and lay off their hands. Thus it
is that falling prices for wheat and corn
and cotton take away from the factory
hand no less than the farm hand the
chance to earn the dollar. Ana without
the chance to earn this dollar the factory
hand cannot spend it, which must in
turn lead to lessened demand for the
fabrics produced by others and general
ly lower prices. Thus, by taking away
from the wage Garner the chance to earn
the dollar, falling prices cause the wage
Garner to lose dollar after dollar. for his
time spent in enforced idleness is time
lost forever and to the wage -earner time
is money.
So to the wage Garner it makes little
difference whether he loses tue dollar
from enforced idleness or lower wages
while he works. AS matter of fact he
loses from both, but the gold contrac-
ZIONIST insists on leaving out of account
:he dollar lost TO the wage Garner from
enforced idleness and by So doing he
strives to figure out that the wage earn
Ell derives a benefit from falling prices
But in drawing the picture with which
he hopes TO beguile the workmen into
support of a policy that takes from the
wage Garner his chances for employment,
and hence bread out Of his mouth, the
gold contractionist does not stop with
tins false assumption as to the income
of the wage Garner. He assumes that a
fall in the prize of wheat to the farmer
is reflected 10y IL fall in equal degree of
the cost of bread to the waee-earner.
And what he assumes as to wheat and
bread he assumes as o~every thing else.
Yet casual observation tells MS that the
price of the loaf of bread is affected but
little and remotely by changes in tie
price of wheat. Tie truth is, the wage
Garner must buy at retail and retail