Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-05-30
have had since the peak of war

k4lllC W0kSSs AN $40
road labor ma be said to be pref
ty we'll back to old time pre-war
schedules, costs Of living consid-
cred. Doubtless they will say that
it is worse than that. There are
now pending applications before
the railroad labor board for other
reductions in other classes of rail-
road employees. The first redue-
ton caused considerable dissatis-
faction and talk of a strike, but it
did not materialize. 1t came at a
| time when there was much unem-
ployment and business depression.
The second reduction in railroad
wages if it comes, as it has al
ready come to the maintenance OF
way men, may not be accepted so
tamely, because business is increas-
ing and unemployment decreasing
at this time.
The argument in support Of this
second reduction in railroad wages
put forth by the railroads is that 1t
is necessary in order to enable them
to reduce railroad rates and so
stimulate business. Very naturally
this argument does not by any
means appeal to the railroad wage
earners who become the victims of
a sacrifice to business prosperity,
and who insist that some other fell
low do the sacrificing. Particular
ly they suggest that the stockhold-
er would make a good sacrifice
substitute and often they add that
the higher paid officials should al
SO mount the altar of sacrifice and
give up some blood to appease the
god of business prosperity.
We are not without some degree
of sympathy and appreciation for
the views of railroad labor, and all
labor, regarding the deflation Of
wages. No one likes to take a cut
in their wages. Most of US have
had to take that already. The
wages of capital have suffered more
than the wages Of labor during
these hard times of reconstruction.
In many cases the wages of capital
have disappeared altogether and
been replaced by a heavy loss of
principal. The stakeholder got no
dividend check but an assessment
notice. The comparison between
the wages of capital and the wages
of labor is not quite fair, though
often made. There is this differ
ence between them. Labor cannot
work without a living wage. 1t
must eat. Capital can work with
out eating. 1t may live on hope of
a greater reward in the future.
And this question of what is a
living wage for labor is one on
which there is no argument and
probably never will be one. A liv-
ing wage to the wage Garner gen.
orally means all he can get, and to
the employee the smallest sum he
can buy competent service for.
This much Gems pretty plain to
US at this time. The cost of living
is not going down any more. 1t is
going up. The whole policy of
congress under republican leader
ship is to raise the price Of agri-
cultural, mineral and manufactured
products. The deflation of prices
has reached it's limit. The defla-
ton of wages has probably reached
its limit. Some wages ought to go
up. They are down to pre-war
rates now, and prices are not down
to that limit, and never will be.
Some wages have not been reduced
at all since the war boom raised
them. The further readjustment
of wages will gradually be effected
by the law of supply and demand,
but the argument of lower living
costs as a factor in wage adjust
ments has about lost its force. In
fact we expect soon to see it used
by labor as a reason for higher
wages, because we have reached
bottom on living costs, and are on
the way up again.
The wages of capital are still
low. If you doubt it note the
steady climb of liberty bond loans.
Capital is willing to accept 3H per
cent net for a wage with a con-
tract covering many years at that.
Interest rates are lower than they
were before the war. But the
wages of labor has been debated
about all that it will stand without
a strike. 1t will as a last resort
leave the country and go where it