Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

tainly be excused for not at once seeing by what magic a half-starved man can be satisfied by increasing his hunger. . Mr. Gunton's chief error lies in his first assumption that a man's wages depend on his standard of living. This economic dictum heretofore current contains only a modicum of truth, as appears from the following considerations:

1. Adam Smith mentions five causes which determine wages, but not one of them is the "standard of living."

2. In the accepted law of rent, wages are determined (by necessary implication) by the margin of cultivation; that is to say, wages are the product of labor alone on the poorest land in use.

3. The consensus of political economists of the present day will not warrant the dictum that wages depend upon the "standard of living" which labor chooses to adopt, without regard to other industrial conditions.

4. Ask any employer if, when he hires a laborer, he first asks him as to his "standard of living" and fixes the wages accordingly, and he would laugh in your face.

5. Ask any laborer if, when he applies for a job and is asked his price, he names a price based on his "standard of living," and he also will laugh in your face.

6. So far from the truth is it that wages depend on the "standard of living" that the exact opposite is truer; namely, that the standard of living depends on wages and changes with every variation in wages.

7. No factor controlled by labor is more important in fixing wages than efficiency.

8. This whole theory of Mr. Gunton that wages are governed by the standard of living, assumes that laborers themselves fix their own wages regardless of capital; that is to say, the "standard of living" the laborer chooses to adopt can be maintained merely by naming to capital the prices at which it will work. How long would there be a labor question if this were really true? The Ricardian law of wages puts a standard of the laborer's living in the hands of capital, and causes it to vary at the bidding of capital, taking care generally that it furnishes the laborer but a bare subsistence.

We may not be able to say what determines wages. If we were to sell labor, we would get the most possible; if we were to buy it, we would pay the least possible, for the, simple reason that while we abhor the system that makes competition necessary, any other course, under individualism, would soon compel us to take up our march " over the hill to the poorhouse." But the inability to discover a law of wages, if, indeed, there be such a law, furnishes no reason for accepting unchallenged the a priori theories of those who first set up a hole for social ventilation and then attempt to build around it.

It is certainly comforting, after going up and down the century in the vain search of the law of wages, to hear an eminent political economist declare with a refreshing indefiniteness that wages are "fixed by uncontrollable movements in a universal market."1

1

It is a psychological mystery, surpassing that of miracles, how a wise man can coolly lay down the proposition that wages are governed by the "standard of living," which every laborer and employer in the land knows to be the exact reverse of what is true, which contradicts the everyday experiences of men, and even does violence to common sense; and then gravely proceed to build thereon a social scheme which will relieve poverty on the one hand, and on the other prop up the tottering institutions which cause it. So much easier is it, obeying the traditions of capitalism, to say "It is Corban," than to deny mammon and serve God.

We do not object to speculation within its province, but the unpardonable sin of the philosophy of capitalism consists in this, that in attempting to make its peace with God and morality it posits its dogmatic conclusions on purely speculative premises.

On such a basis only, rests the argument that an eighthour day will solve the labor problem.

1" The Modern Distributive Process" (Clark), p. 39.

[blocks in formation]

"As the machines have grown in intelligence, the need of intelligence in the operator has decreased." Springfield Republican.

"The remuneration of labor, as such, skilled or unskilled, can never rise much above its present level." - PROFESSOR J. E. CAIRNES.

At the dedication of the Drexel Institute in Philadelphia Chauncey M. Depew said, "The manual training-school solves the problem of labor and industrial development." 1 In a subsequent chapter we shall call attention to the development and progress of industrial schools in Europe as indicating the Socialistic tendency in education. We need not now, therefore, discuss their merits or demerits. We have only words of praise for the noble-hearted man, Anthony J. Drexel, who has made the sacrifice of a magnanimous peace-offering to the cruel industrial war now raging. Our contention is not against the industrial school, which we heartily approve, but solely with the assumption that it "solves the problem of labor and industrial development." We are unable to indorse this conclusion for

the following reasons:

1. No such extravagant claim is made by the friends of manual training in Europe where industrial schools have been the longest and most extensively established.

2. The industrial school in America serves with many as a righteous protest against the contemptuous attitude of the wealthy classes toward manual labor. Even the boys and girls in our common schools, especially in cities, are ashamed of work. Thousands every year graduate from the schools and are let loose upon society, too ignorant for a profession, too proud to work, and too poor not to.

They seek a clerkship or some sort of polite work so far removed from dust and dirt as not to soil their fine clothes or delicate hands. Others recruit the ever-increasing ranks of youthful criminals. Here we have a problem that vexes parents and menaces society.

The graduates of our high schools are but little better

1 "Public Opinion," Dec. 26, 1891.

off. They want positions which either they cannot fill or find already filled. Manual labor they dislike; they are educated; and of all pitiable sights is an educated parasite. To remedy this evil, which has already assumed tremendous proportions, to make manual work honorable, and to dignify the laborer rather than to put an end to the strife between labor and capital, is one reason why many favor industrial schools.

3. Another reason for manual training is the disappearance of the apprenticeship system, not only in this country but largely throughout Europe. This system, with all its hardships, had many advantages.

The boy learned his trade and was taken care of till, by his trade, he could take care of himself. What is to become of the average boy of fifteen to-day who leaves school with no trade, whom nobody will take as an apprentice, whom most employers will not have around, and who has no chance to learn a trade? We know several such boys at this moment and tremble for their future. The industrial school is a partial, but only a partial, answer. It will help; it will give the pupils some little practical acquaintance with the use of tools and the rudiments of a trade which will help them to start in some kind of useful occupation.

4. This leads to a more serious consideration. The industrial school must necessarily limit its teaching, for the most part, to the mechanical trades in which machinery is most extensively employed. But improvement and application of machinery render skilled labor less and less necessary. Time was when the brain wrought equally with the hand in production. The machine now largely takes the place of both brain and hands. True, all labor, even shovelling, is labor mixed with brains; but skill and cunning and manual dexterity have been patented. The laborer is more and more a servant of the machine, if not a part of it. In every department of industry the machine is displacing the man. Even shovelling is being done by machinery. What, then, are the youths who graduate from the industrial school to do? Suppose the industrial schools have helped to make a body of skilled

lathers who are all doing well at their trade. Suddenly they find themselves displaced by a boy putting up wire lathing. What are they to do now? Suppose again a large company of carpenters, the product of the industrial school they are making good wages; all goes smoothly, but very soon matters get worse and complaint is loud. What is the matter? Why, machinery has stepped in and is doing all the work. Frames are sawed and sized at the mill; boards are cut to a width and length, and come planed and jointed and matched doors and windows with their frames; thresholds, stools, casings, jambs, base, rails, posts, balusters, mouldings, all outside finish, corner boards, clapboards, water boards, piazza posts, brackets and rails, cornice, indeed, every piece of wood required in the construction of the house, comes gotten out by machinery, tended oftentimes by mere boys, and which a novice at carpentering can put up. What now are the carpenters thus displaced by machinery going to do? So we might go on through the whole list of mechanical trades. Will the industrial school solve this problem? Rather, will it not add to the difficulty by tending to increase the supply of skilled labor beyond the demand?

5. There is another force that the industrial school must reckon with; viz., competition. Suppose manual training to be general and all youths alike better equipped as they enter the field of industry, would not competition be fiercer than ever? Besides, it is a fair question whether competition among laborers for work and higher wages does not stimulate the laborer's activity, sharpen his wits, and so conduce to his efficiency to a degree so much greater than could result from any training he could receive in the school as to make the latter insignificant. So long as competition is allowed to exist it will be king.

6. The fact that the experiment of industrial training in the schools has been tried and proved a failure is worthy of notice.

After a trial of three years in the Netherlands industrial training was pronounced a failure. None of the advocates of industrial schools have offered to show how these

« AnkstesnisTęsti »