Voice of action. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1933-1936, 1935-01-25

were Hldue III fdrlldlnelll against
laws reducing hours from IL or IL
to 10 in the textile industry, on
the ground that 1t was the last
hour of the days work upon
which Great Britain's foreign
trade depended.
Yet the movement to shorten
hours has gone on. with increased
productivity and increased profit
for British industry. The produc-
Cion system has a way of re.
spending to forces which are not
taken into account in this type
of arithmetic.
1t is pertinent to quote here
another example of financial ar
ithmetie which will be recognized
as applying to current conditions.
AT the World Social Economic
Congress in Amsterdam, Holland,
in 1881, DIR. Otto Neurath, eeono-
mist of Vienna, demonstrating
the need for Analysing the pro-
duction system by it's real pro-
duets instead of measurement
only in prices, gave the following
illustration of commercial emu
meratiOn."
If 100 units of a given product
are sold at the price of three
units of cost, the return is 300. II
200 are sold at the price of two,
the return is 400. But If 300 are
sold at the price of one, the re-
turn is 800, and therefore it is
foolish to make 800 if larger
return is possible from 200
1t is better to destroy the Sur
plus 100" or to refrain from pro,
ducing it by agreements to re-
strict output.
An analysis of the productive
capacity of the United States,
which is the source of the nation
al income, leads to the conviction
that continuity of workers in
come is not only entirely feasible
but necessary to the progressive
expansion of American industry.
And in the light of this well
demonstrated technical conclu-
sion, the arithmetic which proves
that the national income is in
sufficient to enable the govern
ment to compel industry to meet
its obligations to its workers Is
clearly unsOund.
Postponing for a moment this
discussion of how to increase
productivity, it may be said in
answer to DIR. Rubinow's con-
tention that in the other steps
proposed, namely, revised and
increased income tax and inner
itanee tax, the use of war funds
and thorough-going public works
and housing program to reduce
unemployment should prove in
sufficient, and if initial expendi-
lures should not result in much
unemployment and consequent
reduction of the cost of unem-
ployment insurance, there would
remain additional taxes upon in
dustry, such, for example, as have
been proposed in the Wagner
Lewis bill.
This would be a tax based upon
the size of the payroll That is,
it would be an addition to pay
rolls for purposes of continuity
of income for the unemployed.
This is not advocated in the
Workers Bill, and the objection
to it is that it is a charge upon
production which is readily trans
ferable to the workers in in
creased prices for consumers
goods, while at the same time it
serves as a down drag upon the
wage scale, since this kind of tax
is counted in the labor costs of a
corporation. Nevertheless it has
been put forward as the sole
source of funds for unemplOy-
ment insurance of limited kind.
And as a last resort, it is reason
able to expect that it would
make up the deficit remaining
after other sources might have
proved insufficient.
Increase in Productivity
This discussion of taxation
deals, of course, with immediate
issues, which are uncOngenial to
many of those who are impatient
to tackle at once the deeper prob
lens involved in economic secur-
ity.
1t is, however, in no wise incon-
sistent with an approach to these
deeper problems thus to analyze
the immediate steps which could
be taken under the present cap
italistic system to insure continu-
ity of income for the unemployed.
All these steps so far enumer-
ated, except those related to pub
lie works, have to do with an eff
fort to redistribute by taxation
income which has been unecon-
omically distributed in the pro-
duction process. That this dis
tribution is uneconomical even
from the point of view of the
present capitalistic system, is in
dicated in the present difficulties
in getting funds used which are
already available for credit.
For example, in the New York
Times of January 2 the report of
the Federal Reserve System was