New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-05-31
Insignia of Idleness'
Money Spent for Luxdries Canno,
Devoted to Production
To the Editor Of The Tribune.


Sir: Ny letter on insignia Of Idl.ps
was perhaps somewhat ambiguous.
the wearing Of overslls by factory wor..
good sign, not because IL means th., J
women are going TO wear overslls. bu. n
cause il means that some women ar.
going 20 wear skirts. ] don't think oven,
are beautiful, and there is. Of eour,.
need Of wearing them except when o,.
doing very rough work, just as Their. h. u
need Of wearing a raincoat except IN a
rain. But il ought 70 be possible TO -
them when occasion arises, and the prs...
uniform Of skirts makes IL impo,sih,.
don't want new uniform established. bu.
old one skirts, corsets and high h,.l,-
abandoned.
There is perhaps something to be aid a,
skirts on the score of beauty, and On .,,.
occasions the short full skirts We a. a.
wearing are harmless enough. But for en-.
sets and high heels there is not a word IA \.
said-they are insignia Of idleness and uss
ing more. Corsets that eft the oecasious,-
one might as we'll talk Of thumbscrev. ~,
fit the occasion. And just what are N. -.
casions that demand high heels! Cer.s,,
all-dsy employment as a waitress Is not an,
of them; yet the Consumers League inyst
CATION of last winter brought gu. tn. f,r
that in most of the fashionable tea rosr,
pumps and high heels are part OF the v,h
ress's uniform, and not wearing them mon,
losing ones Job.
Ny plan for clothes which allow grestr
ease and freedom of motion had no necesur
connection with the argument for eeonou,
but since the cry OF don't-skimp-o n-luxur;.
neutrality-suspicious. has be<,
raised once more in your correspondent,
reply TO my letter, I can't let it 20 unr.
swered. The answer Is 10 be found. a,
course, in every primer of political eeouosy.
and / may as well quote Professor Ssle.
mans statement of it instead Of ofenae
less forceful one Of my own:
"The apologists for luxury have frou Ina
immemorial sought to justify themse!va Sy
the plea that luxurious expenditure Is b>us.
fetal because it affords employment 10 labor.
The merest tyro in economic reasoning how.
ever, will at once perceive the weakneu Q.
this hoary argument. II luxurious expsnd.
/ ture is productive simply because it enplsy,
labor, the accidental breaking of a windsu
pane or the wanton destruction OF a grown,
crop is also productive in so far as il wi.
REQUIRE labor to repair the damage. The fallae
clearly consists in the assumption that III
wealth spent in luxurious outlay would othss
wise not be devoted to production. 0byiously
however, if the spendthrift chooses not h
waste his funds, they will take the form q
the purchase OF securities, of investment /
some enterprise, or Of a cash balance in III
bank; and in each case they will ultimats,
be devoted TO production and thus give en-
ployment to labor" ("Principles Of Ecdnen
! ics," 1870.
The Allies, said an officer Of some Dry
goods association the other day, don't wsa,
the flowers from our womsn's hats. No, bu,
they want, and We want, the health and time
and energy that now go to the making o.
those flowers. We must as you say in 10
j days editorial, abolish the Aunkies and IN,
valets"-yes, and the makers and sellers o.
summer furs! The need Of labor for III
/ production of necessares Is so great tina
there is serious danger Of q repeal Of h
! child labor law; at such time are We I
consider 1t solemn duty not TO relax on
/ demand for toilet accessories"1
MARGARET FRANKLIN.
New York, May %, 1917.