Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-09-25

All Of us have become so engross-
cd with the problem Of cutting down
the cost Of production that we have
let distribution take care Of itself. We
have saved millions at the bung but
we are losing millions at the spigot.
In the past fifty years the amount OF
goods produced In the United States
has increased probably.ten times v
The number OF workers necessary to
produce those goods have increasedl
only about two and a half times. This
means that, owing to new machinery
and better methods. the average
worker today is able to TURF out about
four times as much goods in eight
hours as the worker, fifty years ago did
in ten or twelve hours. Allow for the
cost, Of the machinery. fuel. etc, and
even then you And the average unit
producing. cost today ia less than half
OF what 1t used to be. In production
we haye made wonderful: progress. be-
aus we have given most Of our
thought and effort to It.
Turn to distribution and we And
no such progress. In fact, the per-
centaEe cost OF distribution probably
mas not been reduced at all. With
twice the production per worker we
should expect that the wages for a
days work would buy twice as much
goods as 1t used to. II. distribution
a been improved as much. as pro-
,duction. a days wages would buy. four
times as muchfas it did fifty years ago
1--WE all know that no such increase
has <tAkcn. place. In fact, it is de-
batable II the average family today is
even half again as we'll off as it used
Ito be. :.
This does not mean. that the retail
err OF the jobber or the carrier are
hogging the difference. 1t al to
vefoped our tastes so as to get the.
most for u money. It means that
we have not educated the retailer and
other distributors to most efficient
methods of handling merchandise. In
short we have not made the same
progress in distributing goods as we
have in their actual production.
w have been devoting our efforts
to building better factories, to getting
a greater output from labor, to put
ting out more and better, goods.
I'VE have done very little toward
the equally important problem Of get
ting those goods to the ultimate con-
sumner. The government ia spending
over 800. 000. 900 aEyear in research
ITO help the manufacturers and farm
ers. but it has eve even taken q
census Of the retailers. Hundreds OF
men are employed gathering informa-
ton on the crops. Hundreds more
are, experimenting in chemical re-
search for mean Of fehting pests
and blights which destroy. crops, and
instructinE the GARNER In their use.
Similar work is being done for the
manufacturer to help him find more
efficient methods of production. "A
| 11Sar1NAa 44~u,~ - 49, L.
taken every Ave Years, which shows
the number of firms in each industry,
their production. costs and profts!
These things, Of course. cost money
but they are worth it. They are
largely responsible for the fact that
the United States stands. bead and
shoulders above any other country, in
the efficiency Of its production. Is
there any reason why we should not
spend at least as much to he., the re-
tail distributor on, whom we must de-
pend to- get these goods to us?
80 far. most people have been con-
tent to point to the growth Of the
chain store and cooperative selling
movements as indicating the short
comings. of the individual retailer but
the crying need Of the hour is that we
all get behind the retailer and help
him. If his methods are wrong it IL
our misfortune and it is up to the rest
Of us to show. him a better way. He
sells at least $50 of~all the consumers
goods bought in the United. States; he
has more than a million stores in the
country representing an investment of
billions Of dollars; in short, the indi-
vidual retailer today is our main and
vital artery of distribution.
MANY people thoughtlessly say, DO
away with the individual retailer. Let
the chain store or the cooperative
association take his place Anyone
who studies the problem, however,
must realize the shortsightedness Of
such a plan. Both the chain store
and the cooperative association are
all. right. but would we care to give
any single organization a monopoly Of
our distribution?
Then there isW another phase Of the
retail situation for which you and I
as consumers are to blame-the truth
is we have grown lazy. We wantSour
goods brought to the door, we want
to@havS a wide variety OF. ,~sty1es-and
grades of goods to Flick from: When
our wives select a pair Of SHOES they
inSist- upon having twenty different
lakts to choose from. Whenawe buy
sugar we prefer to have 1t come in q
~pasteboard box of TIA particular size
which best suits our fancy: and so on
throughout the line. But these things
cost money. They are nice but are
they essential? IfsweSknew we could
get good shoes for 25% less, would we