Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1912-10-24

Inc argument tnat prctectlon
dams up wages sprang from the
protected interests themselves. They
naturally do not want the workman
to complain OF the higher prices which
he has to pay. and they have tried
to make him believe that they are
raising his wages. The only proof
they offer is that wages are higher in
the United States where we have pro
lection than in England where there
is free trade. But this is no srgu-
ment at all. for wages were always
higher In the United States than in
England even before England had free
trade. Wages are always higher in
a new and undeyelosed country than
In an old and crowded country.
"A much fairer comparison is that
between Germany and England, both
Of which are old and densely popu.
lated, but one OF which has the sys.
TEN of free trade and the other pro-
lection. From recent Official Stats
tics which have been carefully pre-
pared. it is found that German wages
are IL per cent lower than English
wages. We find still more contrast
between England and France, which
not only has so-called protection for
the nation as a whole. but in which
each little village has a tariff against
other villages. We find that wages in
France are % per cent below wages
in England. Thus we find, when we
compare countries alike in other re-
spects, that the less the tariff, the
higher the wages. and the more the
tariff. the lower the wages.
But in order to find out exactly
how the laboring man fares we need
to take account not only of his wages,
but Of the cost of living as we'll
Real wages are not money. but what
money will buy. Real wages mean
food and shelter and clothing, and all
the other necessities, comforts and
of life. For instance. a
century and a half ago laborers in
Rhode Island received wages OF $40
a day from which We might think
that they were better off than the
laborers of today. AS a matter of
fact, however, they were much worse
off, for sugar cost s3.50 a pound. corn
$50 a busheI, and shoes $40 a pair. A
days wages would buy less than
three pounds of sugar, or a half.
bushel of corn, and Il would require
four days work TO buy a pair of
shoes. Those who claim that the
tariff dams up wages must show
that it does not dam up prices as
much. The truth is, however, that
il dams up prices more. We see this
clearly in making comparisons be-
tween Germany and England. The
German tariff has damned up prices
but has not damned up wages. The
cost Of living in Germany is II per
cent higher than in England, but the
wages in Germany are, as l have
said, II per cent lower than in Eng
land. Thus the laborer is protected.
Germany loses, as compared with the
laborer in free trade England. in
both ways-his wages are lower and
the cost of living is higher. He gets
100 hlOAiCs lOI MS WI anu mas 10
pay more for his living. This makes
an actual advantage of about 40 per
cent to the English laborer as com.
pared with the German. This is
about the same advantage for the
British iaborer as compared with the
French. These are the facts, and so
far as they prove anything they
prove that protection injuries the
laboring man.
"But the advocates OF protection
put up another very prstty argument
They say that labor is benefited by
protection because protection makes
factories and factories give workmen
Jobs. They say that If you reduce
the tariff you win ruin these indus
tries, all the men new working in
them will be out Of work. This argu-
ment sounds well, but il is wrong in