Connecticut western news., 1897-09-02

remedy for both employee and employer is to reduce the hours of work so that the present enforced idleness shall be turned into leisure. In no other way can improved machinery prove bless ing and not a curse to labor.
 But, says the employer of labor, you do not expect us to pay as much per day for eight hours work as we now do fol ten hours, do you?
 We expect the employer of labor with shorter workday to pay just what the market price compels him to-no more or less. The purchaser of wheat can- not afford to pay as much for two bush els as for three bushels, but when the demand for wheat equals the supply of 1t he can often afford to pay more fer two bushels than he can afford to pay for three bushels when the demand is less than the supply. Let the demand and the supply control the price for labor as well as for any other com modity. It would, of course, be neces- sary for the worker to accept reduced wages for reduced hours at the outset, but by lessening the hours of work the demand for labor would equal the SUD- ply, and thus the rate of wages would rise to fair level. The increased con- sumption caused by giving all steady employment would greatly stimulate the market for manufactures, and this in turn would give still more work and better business.
 Nor would the lessening of the hours of toll affect employers of labor. Every buyer of labor can afford to pay as much for it as his competitors pay in an open market. The paying of less or more simply demoralizes business.
 But the pseudo political economist will probably rise to say that lessening the hours of work would so increase the cost of production that the workingman would lose what he gains in steady work by the increase in what he pays for goods. Let us sec how much truth there is in this hypothesis: A factory employing 500 hands will produce, by the aid of improved machinery, 100 cases of shoes per day, or 7,200 pairs. A reduction of the hours of labor from ten to eight per day would increase the cost of manufacture one- fifth, or, let us say, $200 per day, which is a liberal al- Iowance. This would add less than 3 cents per pair to the cost of shoes to the consumer, or, estimating the average price of shoes at So per pair. it would compel the purchaser to pay 15 per cent more for his shoes than he does at pres ent. Adding similar increase to the cost of the production of leather and machinery, it could not possibly raise the cost more than per cent. And with steady employment to all labor and the better wages consequent to an equaliza- tion of its supply and demand what workingman could complain of an ad- ditional cost of 5 or even 10 per cent to his living expenses?
 An Economic Aspect.
 In the discussion of this question we often hear it claimed, and as often hear 1t used as an argument for reduced hours of work, that men can do as much work in eight hours as they can in ten hours. If such would really bc the case, then the proposed reduction is not enough, and those who make the statement as a reason for tho shorter workday exhibit a painful ignorance of the economic aspect of the question. The reason for lessening the workday is not that men should perform as much in it as they do now, but that they should accomplish less. When it was first proposed to reduce the hours of work of the United States letter car riers, the postmaster general opposed it because it would take more men to do the work, yet this was really the only economic reason for favoring it.
 The value of labor or anything else that can be bought or sold, no matter whether it be beans, brains, diamonds, money, potatoes or putty, depends upon the supply of it and the demand for it. The strike, the riot, the sw eatshop and the conflict between capital and labor will continue until the hours of toll are so reduced that the demand for work CTS will be equal to the supply. The one exchange above all exchanges on which the we'll being and rtogress of society depend is that between those who purchase labor and those who sell it-between capitalists and latorers. It l is pernicious that either of theke classes | should fall into the hands of tfe other. Combinations among workmen designed to restore something like equal terms | of purchase and sale for the work of | their hands are commendable. No mo- l tive could be more laudable, no effort | more just. Strikes and riots are the un- | desirable and unfortunate incidents of this movement, but the movement it. | .,1 -Ho1-- .-l l. eral prosperity.
 The proposed effort for a shorter workday beginning May 1, 1898, is therefore wise one and should be as much favored by the employer as the employed. Its consummation will great ly diffuse moderate welfare and advance general prosperity. Let every good oiti zen and wise citizen do all in his power to uphold it. JEROME WooD.