The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1921-08-06
WHAT WAGES WILL BUY"


running in the daily papers, coming
from an unknown source, and leading
off with this caption set in glazing
type: at s Not Wages You Want; It's
What Wages Will Buy
That was labor's cry all through the
war when prices were fleeting upward
by leaps and bounds. The chief trou-
Bile was in the fact that prices out.
ran wages, and while wage earners
were paid what seemed like big money
in dollars and cents their relative
wages were lower than before the
war
In 1918 plumber worked eight
hours to earn sufficient money to buy
a pair Of shoes valued at SIS. He now
works II hours to buy the same shoes
sold at So. During the war he worked
Is hours to buy the same pair. In
1913 he worked two hours to earn
money enough to have his shoes re.
paired; now he must work three hours.
"Sugar,' says the advertisement,
cost you 26 cents pound last sum.
mer,' and now it can be bought ''for
10 cents a pound The ADVERTISE
ment uses this as an argument for
wage reduction not in the same pro-
portion it is true, but reasonable
wage reduction, which would hurt no
one if you could buy as much with
less amount Of money!
Now is not that viewing the ques-
ton from an altogether one-sided an
gle? And is the proposition fair? Let =
60 back to 1918 when a plumber
worked eight hours to earn sufficient
money to buy sack Of sugar sold
at SIS during the preserving season.
The plumber is still being paid "war
wages,' and even with the present
cut in sugar as stated in the adves.
tlsement he must work 10 hours to
earn enough money to purchase a 10o-
pound sack sold for $40, or at the rate
of 10 cents a pound.
If the "Open Shoppers had sue
ceeded in forcing the plumber to &C.
cept their wage cut of 80 cents an
hour he would now be compelled to
work l2H hours to buy the same sugar
ne could have purchased with eight
hours of labor in 1913. Sugar is to-
day selling in Duluth for 8 cents A
pound and the wage Garner must work
just as long to buy pound of it now
as he did in 1918.
So it can be seen there is nothing
but bunk in the argument advanced
by the unknown authors of the adj
vertisements on wage reductions. Their
caption is alluring, but their argu.
ments are misleading. There have not
been sufficient reductions in prices to
warrant reductions in wages. Present
'hlgh' wages have not the purchas-
Ing power Of tho 1913 ''low'' wares.
nor are we sure that prices will not
rise again.
The following news dispatch from
Washington under date Of July 81 con.
veys little hope to the workers.:
Retail price of food increased in
nine Of ten principal cities during the
period from June Is to July Is, the
department of labor announced TODAY.
In Detroit, prices went up per cen:;
IN Peoria and Providence, per cent;
Manchester and New Haven, 4 Der
cent; Mobile and Savannah, 3 Der
cent, and in Atlanta and Richmond. 7
per cent.
"Prices in Little Rock decreased
one-tenth of l per cent?
In the light Of all that is happen
ing labor is justified in the face of
doubtful present and an uncertain
future in resisting with all its might
every attempt to reduce wages. Indeed.
10 wage reduction should be thought
of until the general price level is more
FIRMLY established.