The Washington times., 1934-09-21


hours, more
men will be re-
quired; and (2) Z sN&
by raising the Lewis Haney
wage per hour, laborers will get
as much or more money to spend.
It is clear that there is some
thing the matter with this line OF
reasoning. If it were strictly true
where could we stop? We would go
. on reducing hours and increasing
the use of machinery until we
would use little or no labor. Then
E labor would be producing little or
nothing. Where would wages come
from?
There must be some flaw in the
idea that by less work we can
make more wages.
In fact, our experience with
NRA already indicates that the
idea does not work out as It's
sponsors anticipated.
AS we shorten the week and
keep up wages per week, we raise
wages per man hour. We also
interfere with plant operations,
and increase overhead machine
costs. Thus the cost Of produc'
ton is raised.
This has two results: (D 1t
: reduces the amount left for
interest and profits. ~ 1t in
creases prices and living costs
of labOrerS. But when there is
less return for capital and
enterprise, employers are not
able to employ SO much labor:
Business does not prosper, and
eventually labor suffers. And
when living costs rise, they eat
ND the higher money wages re-
ceived by the labOrer, SO he IS
no better off.
In fact, the high wages and
other costs naturally make the
employer try to substitute still
more machinery for labor!
If you say, well, we will do away
with employers and business
enterprise, you get nowhere
Under socialism you have to use
capital lust the same, and the gov
ernment merely becomes the cap
italist and employer. Look at
Russia.
The plain fact is that there IS
no way under Gods heaven 10
pay wages except out OF the pro
duct of labor, and if we reduce
that product we must reduce what
p can be paid as wages.
Mere work" is not productive
labor. Mere time and energy may
produce nothing, but may be
wasted, as much CWA and PWA
work has been. Any wages" paid
for unprodutive work are a dole
and reduce the total Of the
nation. Wages must come out OF
valuable products.
NV correspondent says that
men displaced by machines can't
be absorbed, and remain unem'
ployed.
We know that this makes a
serious problem for considerable
periods, but I do not believe 1t is
a permanent condition. MY chle1
reason is as follows:
Machines are introduced to
make things cheaper. This
tends to put prices down, and
will do 50 if we prevent or regu.
late mOnOpOlieS. But lower
prices increase consumption and
make things more abundant
People have more money left,
after buying necessities, to buy
other things. Thus production
expands and new fields for it
are opened up. More labOrerS
are thus required.
OF course, too, the manufac-
ture of the machines requires
labor. It is important to remem-
ber that as the machine age pro-
crosses, machines quickly become
obsolete, long before worn out,
and labor helps to build new
ones.
On the other hand, when labor
tries to get more wages than
employers can afford to pay
whether by shorter hours at
the same weekly rate of pay, or
otherwise), employers are driven
to use more machinery still. This
intensifieS the problem.
Twist your logic as you will, it
remains true that we are better
off when the things we need are
abundant. and as cheap as pos
sible considering the cost. We
can't go on long paying farmers
for not farming or paying labor
ers for not laboring.
Don~oxy1xy0nHO Co~