New-York tribune., 1921-10-26
Warning Against Production

Warning Against Production
A few thousand years ago man
was barely able to sustain life for
himself and his immediate family.
He had no comforts. His existence
was constant struggle against cold,
hunger, thirst and violent death.
In the course of time, however,
man learned to scratch the surface
of the earth and plant grain seed.
Eventually he invented a crude rlow,
enabling him to raise enough Of a
harvest to support larger family
and even people outside his family.
The average standard Of living rose
In consequence and there was less
hunger in the world.
With\the advent of domestic ami
mails, of the metal plow and lastly
of the tractor plow, man, the unit,
has been able to increase his power
of productiveness. Instead of strug-
Cling to feed few mouths he can
now with ease feed thousands. With
each advance in individual produc-
tive power the average standard of
living has risen.
The same is true Of all the other
necessaries, comforts and blessings
Of life. When one man learned to
make by mechanical aid fifty pairs
Of shoes day there were more shoes
for every one. When one man be-
came able to make ten garments a
day there were more clothes for
every one. When the labor Of one
man became the equivalent Of one
thousand electric lights there was
more light for every one; and so it
goes with everything we eat, wear
or use, whether it is tooth brush or
an Improvement in transportation.
Always the average standard of
living has risen with increased pro-
duction per man. That is all that
makes the difference between the
hardships man suffered ten thousand
years ago and the comparative ease
and comfort in which man lives to-
day. 1t follows that the man or
group of men who, for selfish reasons
or platonic ones, increases the pro-
ductlve power of man is in reality a
public benefactor and raises the av-
erage standard of life for us all. It
is equally true that he who lessons
the individual productiveness per
man is lowering the average stand
ard of living, and is leading us
straight back along the trail we have
come, where there are fewer COM
forts and more hardships for all
Of us.
This is the mistake that unionists
are making. They do not see that
by lowering production, by making
two jobs grow where one grew be-
tore, they are lowering the standard
or living for themselves as we'll as
Tor every one else. Perhaps they
should not be blamed for not seeing
the fallacy of this policy. Man Is
properly selfish animal in pro-
tecting himself and his future. and
1t requires a lapse of years to make
clear the direction in which we ara
going.
Imagine, however, a union policy
That stood for increased production
IN all ways except those that place
an undue physical or mental strain
upon the worker--a union nolicv
that bent its every effort in this
direction. What would the results
Dc Tor the unions? Would not all
want to employ unionized labor,
would it not be possible to paw IT
1ar more than it gets to-day? Conld
not employers afford to do so? The
union scale of wages would rise +:
union labor would be bid up higher
ana higher; the union standard of
living would rise. Would not the
average standard Of living for us all
rise accordingly?
Is not that the road to bring last
ing life and prosperity to the
unions?
Can the one they are follow;ne
lead to anything but extinction?