The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1917-07-21
By STOUGHTON COOLEY.

bOarder at fashionable hotel has un-
dertaken to live a week on an expen-
diture of 33 cents day forfood. This
spectacular feat is on a par with the
demonstration of the sociologist that
there is no need of any mans being
unemployed, because he secured sew
en- jobs in one day. It is, indeed, typ
ical of too much of the investigation
into social and economic conditions.
This investigator, having divided
the dollar into three parts to be OK
pended for rent, clothing and food.
proceeds to demonstrate by practical
experience that girl working for 81
a week can live wholesomely on 33
cents a day. Just what this demon
stration will prove is uncertain.
A school of health culturists de-
clares that all save the very poor are
eating too much, and that a fast of
from one to three weeks every year
would be conducive to better health
Hence, if the boarder from FASH
ionable hotel should survive her mea-
ger diet for a week, the fact might be
taken as a demonstration of the vir-
tues of the health culture. philosophy.
Besides, the fact that girl can live
on 33 cents worth Of food a day does
not need proving. The girls have been
demonstrating that for, 10, these many
years. Nay, they have demonstrated
that they can live on Sc week, or
even IS.
Wages Based on What?
But what has this to do with the
wage question? And what bearing
has it on the justice of the complaint
that 81 week is an insufficient
wage? Are wages to be based upon
justice. or upon charity? Is the
amount to be gagged by what the re-
! cipient needs or by what she earns?
Or, to reverse the proposition should
! the employer pay according to his
ability or according to the needs of the
employee? Why is it that these empi-
rio sociologists insist Upon Investigate
ing the employees capacity to endure
rather than the employers ability to
pay?
Granted that it has been proven
that girl can live on 33 cents worth
of food day; what then? Not very
long ago man lived for more than
: month on peanuts that cost less than
cents day. It is not unlikely that
! a chemist could make up a daily
menu of peanuts, rice and bananas at
cost of cents a day, or possibly 3.
What bearing on the wage question
has dem onstration that human be-
ing can live on few cents a day?
Are any of the $30,000-a-year bank
presidents likely to consider it as a
basis for their wages? Will any Of
the $70,O00-a-year railroad presi-
dents be disposed to accept it as a
; measure of their own earnings? Yet
why should the irreducible minimum
cost of living fix the wages of sho1
girl. and not the wages of the bank
president?
Suppose a girl can live on 80 cents
worth of food day? Does this rep
resent the sum of human progress? Is
!: this the achievement of civilization i?
; Was the sewing machine invented
merely to chain garment makers to
the benches of the sweat shop? Were
the reaper, the gangplow and the cul-
tivator devised only to turn farmer
owners into tenants? Is society
with elevators bursting with grain,
shops grooming with goods, and facto-
ries ready to double their output, to
be satisfied with discovering how lit
tie a girl can live upon?
This will never get us anywhere. It
will never bring about the equable
frame of mind that leads to friendli-
ness and good will among the various
elements of society. The problem is
not how little girl, or any other
worker, can live upon, but how much
oh &c hor CHI
duces. If she be paid more than she
, produces she is to that exetent living
upon charity. if she be paid less than
she produces. she is to that extent de-
prived of what rightfully belongs to
her.
Bare Necessities.
Seven dollars a week today corre-
spends to 81 or 50 week in the
early colonial days; that is, the bare
necessities of life that now cost 81
could be had in those times for 81 or
50; and the amount in either the colo
NAL days or the present represents a
bare living. Indeed, there was less
! acute hardship in the earlier days
than now; so that it may be said that
weeks work secures less Of life,
! comfort and contentment than it did
! when the country was new.
When, therefore. the Fourth of July
orators<ring the changes on our prog
ress and achievements, and point with
| the tremulous finger of pride to our
! railroads and our factories. our ships
! and our mines, our inventions and our
! discoveries, it is fair to ask, what of
| it? Is the success of this country to
! be measured by the fact that it is the
; richest in the world, or that a large
/ number of it's workers lack the neces-
| sites of life?
The solution of this nrohIem docs