The Liberal democrat. [volume] (Liberal, Kan.) 1911-1924, 1920-05-06

The men in between, IN all grades,
similarly were underpaid.
During the war common labor was
getting Sc and 81 day. In the
shipyards, workers were making as
high as $50 day. In the munitions
plants unskilled workers were get
ting an average of $40 day. Car
penters at environments averaged
$40 week. The same high figures
prevailed in civilian pursuits-work
that had little or no connection with
the war. Because of the absence of
the four and a half million, the serv-
ices of clerks, statesmen, auditors,
editors, insurance men, hotel clerks,
walters, porters, chauffeurs and ex-
ecutives were at a premium. They
named their own price and got it.
There is no quarrel with the man
who worked. He sold his services in
the open market and got what the
buyer thought they were worth or
knew he had to pay. The man who
bought labor was not the loser, for
he resold it in the form of canton
ments munitions, military supplies
and domestic products, at a ripe
profit.
Corporations that manufactured
mateials not directly destined for
the military forces also did very
nicely, thank you, during the two
years the soldiers and sailors fought.
How frequently you have heard
the groan that high wages were the
cause of high prices and that the
manufacturer and jobber could not
make a decent profit because of cost
of operation and taxes? The Even
ing World, New York, has published
series of highly Illuminating ar
ticles in which the excessive profits
of big corporations are disclosed.
Remember that great many of these
people are numbered among the &C
tive opponents of compensation to
former service men and women.
These figures are interesting enough
for reproduction here:
One large leather company had
gross sales in 1919 of $68,917,939.
In 1917, when production was small
er, the value of gross sales mounted
to $91,731, 64S, an increase of over
thirty-three per cent. In 1915 the
operating expenses of this company
were eighty per cent of gross bust
ness. In 1917, in war times, operat-
ing expenses were only seventy-four
per cent. In 1914, this corporation
paid a two per cent dividend on its
common stock. In 1917 a nine per
cent dividend was paid on the COM
mon stock.
A large corporation that manu-
features shoes, with a twenty-acre
plant and fifty-fve acres of floor
space, turns out $50 600 pairs of
shoes daily. In 1915, it showed a
gross profit of 1913 per cent; in 1916,
1916 per cent; in 1917, 1915 per
cent; in 1919, 1876 per cent.
While we are on the subject of
shoes, consider a leather company
which in 1915 earned forty-four
cents on each share of common
stock; in 1917, $7.41 for each share
| in 1918, $12.83 per share, and in
1919, $15.52 per share.
Also let us consider another shoe
company. In 1915, this company
earned $40 for each share of common
stock; in 1916, $20.06; in 1917,
$23.66; in 1918, $1s.23, and in 1919,
$2O.46.
That takes care of shoes. You can
see one reason why they cost so much
When it comes to collars and shirts
you get the same answer.
One collar company showed 8.7
per cent net profits on total business
done in 1917. In 1918, this profit rose
to 15.9 per cent. A shirt company's
rate of dividend in 1915 was SO; in
1919 81.
When it comes to smoking mater
ials, consider one of the large cigar
companies which in 1917 saved out
of each dollar of business 1859 per
cent, and in 1919, $3.50 per cent.
Cocoa drinkers and chocolate fiends
will be interested to know that a
company that controls most of this
business earned 1884 per share in
1915 and $31 in 1919. Suite de-
cent increase.
By such standards, the soldier,
sailor and marine were greatly under.
paid. When the extreme hazard of hiS
duties is considered, the disparity of
emolument is even more striking.
These are cold-blooded arguments.
Whoever denies that the former SER
vice man deserves extra compensa.
ton is a cold-blooded opponent.