The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1934-06-30

Us OF a per CenI.
Evidently, therefore, manu-
featuring contributed little to-
ward putting our people back to
work. and actually reduced total
wage payments.
One reason for this may be seen
in the following facts. Cd Between
May, 1888 and May this year, the
total factory output increased only
about 10 per cent, and prices OF
manufactured goods average d
about 16 per cent higher. CO But
in the same period. factory employ
ment increased 81 per cent and
total payrolls were 81 per cent
higher.
Clearly, manufacturers could
not long go ahead increasing
employment and payrolls two or
three times as fast as they could
increase their production of SELL
ing prices. After all, as long as
we rely on private enterprise to
employ labor, we must allow such
enterprise something for profits.
Another point worth noting
Is that average weekly earnings
of factory labOrers probably in.
creased only about 10 per cent
during the year ended in May.
THAT is the exact figure fer
Massachusetts, industries.) This
a. IL
shorter hours were worked.
So the individual worker did
not have so much to spend. And
when he came to market. he
found living costs up at least 9
per cent, with department store
prices up over 20 per cent! How
much better off was he as an
individual?
: Evidently the stationary condi-
ton of factory employment was
the result of increases in some
sections offsetting decreases else
where. For example, employment
in New York, Massachusetts,, and
Pennsylvania actually declined in
May. The results may therefore
be called spotty.
This fact is emphasized by an
examination of the various in
dustries. Apparently there were
very large seasonal gains in ice
cream. beverages, sugar, electrical
apparatus, and certain building
materials. Of course. large sea-
sonal declines occurred in the
fertilizer and cottonseed oil in
dustries. But I am inclined to
think that special seasonal fac
tors played a part in holding
employment up.
It is notable, too, that the arti-
ficial squirt in steel production.
and the Government spending for
Slaughtering and meat packing.
contributed to the larger gains in
employment in those industries.
There were large decreases in
employment in the following in
dustries: Typewriters tstrike),
silk C"cOde" curtaiImen y,
rayOn and cotton goods lover
prOductiOn), canning and pre-
serving and agricultural nipple
mentS drought, tobacco manu-.
featuring, aircraft, and alumni
mum.
Only three industries, how
ever. employed fewer workers
than a year ago. these being
plumbing supplies. confectionery
and millinery. OF these, only
plumbing supplies showed a
smaller pay roll than year ago.
En-
In fact. one of the interesting
points revealed by the figures. is
the large number of cases IN
which the total wages paid have
increased far more than the mum
Der employed. I note particularly
iron and steel, saw mills, and
brick and tile: also such non
manufacturing industries as clean
ing and dyeing, retail trade, and
coal mining. This means, to some
extent. more hours worked, but is
chiefly the result of operating
under the Blue Eagle or codes with
their minimum wages.
1t now remains to be seen %
how long private employers can
stay in business with their eX
penses so increased. and ~
whether Tugwell's social manage
ment" is to mean government
operation when there is no money
in it for individual enterprise.