Evening star., 1946-01-03

the whole coun- Lowell MelIett.
try will benefit from any improve
ment that may be brought about in
the South.
I've been reading an article in the
Virginia Quarterly Review and, be-
ing sure that some millions of Amer
leans do not find time to peruse
that publication, wish to quote a
lew paragraphs. The article deals
with the old subject of low wages
in the South VS.. not-so-low wages in
the North. The author is Richard
A. Lester. He says:
"The list of alleged causes in
cludeS such factors as higher freight
rates, greater distances from mar
kets, higher interest rates, lower
labor productivity, cheaper living
costs, additional nonwage costs for
perquisites and welfare programs,
less effective management, poorer
capital equipment and less union
ism In the South.
Claims of Doubtful Validity"
Investigation reveals that the
claims regarding number of these
factors are of doubtful validity. It
is questionable, for example, whether
living costs for the same standard
OF living are much lower in the
South than in the North. Many
products have uniform national
prices; others increase in price with
the distance from producing or mar
keting centers. Consequently, vari-
GUS cost of living studies have shown
that, on a comparable basis, living
costs In the South have averaged no
more than 3 to per cent below such
costs in the North and that it costs
more to live in some Southern cities
than in some Northern cities of
comparable size.
Capital equipment in the South
is not generally poorer in quality or
quantity. On the contrary, in many
industries such as paper and pulp,
textiles, furniture and rubber, the
newest and best equipped plants are
In the South. AS another indication
Of relative mechanization. census
data show that the electric energy
used per man-hour in Southern
manufacturing has generally aver
aged well above the average for
manufacturing in the Northeast.
"A number of studies have been
made Of the comparative effective
ness of factory labor in the North
and South. Two detailed studies of
three textile firms with plants in
both regions indicated that South
ern labor was fully as efficient as
Northern labor. In response to a
comprehensive QUESTIONABLE, % out
Of Al inter-regional concerns re-
ported the efficiency of factory
labor in their Southern plants
equal to or Gin four instances)
above that Of labor in their
Northern plants, yet a majority
of those % concerns were paying
wage rates in the South averaging
from 10 to Is per cent lower than
in the North. :,
Productivity as Great.
ALSO, eight out Of twelve replies
from industrial engineering firms
doing consulting work in both re-
gions stated that labor productivity
in the South was as great as or
greater than in the North under
comparable conditions"
So there you have it. The argu-
nent offered for a low-wage econ
ony In the South is bunk. Who is
this man who says SO? The editors
of the Quarterly explain:
During the past year Richard A.
Lester has been engaged in study
of Southern wage differentials under
grant by the General Education
Board. Chats an offshoot Of the
Rockefeller Foundation. - l.. M
Formerly a teacher of economics at
Duke University. "a North Caro-
lima educational institution, built
out OF tobacco profits.-L. M Mr..
Lester Is now associate professor OF
economics and research associate In
the industrial relations section at
Princeton. Until recently he was
chairman of the Southern Textile
Commission under the National War
Labor Board"
So Mr. Lester has some reason to
know what he is talking about and
his whole article is commended to
anybody interested in the subject.
This should include all concerns