The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1914. A POPULAR FALLACY

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2202, 15 July 1914, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1914. A POPULAR FALLACY

Popular fallacies die hard, and many..an exploded theory which ought "to have been decently interred long ago is still paraded in Parliament and on the public platform as if it wero an established fact, about which there could be no difference of opinion among rational men and women. Perhaps no. political fallacy has been trotted out more frequently for the purpose of playing upon tho emotions of the people than the assertion that in modern times there has been a vast accumulation of wealth at one end of the social ladder, and increasing poverty at the other.end. In other words, that the riches of the rich aro being piled up at an ever-growing rate, while the poor are steadily ' becoming poorer. A statement to this effect was made by the member for AVanganui (Mr. y bitch) in the course of a rather futilo discussion on unemployment and tho right to work which took place in the House of Representatives yesterday. He was speaking of the social condition of England at tho time, and seemed to regard his remark on this point as so obviously true that no onc,would think of contradicting it; And yet, as a matter of fact, the very opposite is the case. In his recent book on Social Reform as Related to Realities, and Delusions, Mr. ,W. H. Mallock shows very convincingly, by moans of a most impressive array of facts and figures, .covering the period between the year 1800 and the present time,' that there is no justification for tjie well-known Socialist formula that "under the modern system of. capitalisation (the results of which arc most apparent in England) it is a. matter of theoretical necessity, and of historical fact also that the rich become ever richer and the poor ever poorer. Mr. Mallock claims to be in the fortunate position 1 of having been able to make use for the first time of some valuable statistical records regarding the amount and distribution of incomes at the' beginning of tho Nineteenth Century. M'Cullough thought they, had been destroyed, and they have,not been used by such well-known authorities' as Porter, Levi, Dudley Baxter, or Giffek.

Two copies were discovered by Mr. Mat,lock in the University Library at Cambridge, and with their help ho has been able to make some extremely interesting comparisons. From these statistical records of the economic condition of various sections of tho people of England at the opening of the Nineteenth Century, Mn. Matlock has extracted the following outstanding facts regarding the distribution of incomes inthe year 1801 The number of those exceeding ( £5,000 a year was about 1,100 The number of those between o'I.COO and .£5,000 a year was about . 11,000 The number of those between •£IGO and .£I,OOO a year was about 90,000 The number of thoso between 30s. , and 02s. a week was about 90,000 The number of thoso between. 225. and 30s. a week was.about 100,000 The number of those below 225. a week or .EGO a year was about 3,752,100 The corresponding figures for tho year 1910 are as follow: — Tho number of incomes exceeding a year wag about 10,000 (supertax figures). Tho number of incomes between XI,GOO and J!5,000 a year was about 60,000 (evidence of houses). Tho number of incomes between .£IOO and .£1(000 a year was about. 1;100,000 (evidence of houses). i i The number of. incomes between 30s. and 02s. a week was about 6,000,000 l[Board of. Trad? figures). The number of incomes between 225. and 80s. a week was about 2,000,000 (Board of Trade figures). . Tho number of incomes below 225. a week was about 2,000,000 (Board of T ratio figures). The above figures clearly show that the aggregate income'of the working classes has increased more rapidly than the aggregate incomc of the very rich, proper _ allowanco is made for the increaso in population. Mr. Mallock: gives another table showing that in the year 1801 the incomo of the entire population gives an average of £20 per head; in 1850 the avorage had risen to £24 per head; in 1880 it was £35 per head; and in 1910 it was £45 per. head. In 1801 the income of the _ working classes was £14 per head; in ■ 1850.. it was £17 per head; in 1880 it was £24 per head; while in 1910 it had risen to £34 per head. Put in another form, Mr. Mallock points out that "whilst tho • remuneration of work other than manual has risen on tho whole (w'o may say roughly)_ by 15 per , cent., the remuneration of manual work has risen by no less than 120 per cent." In view of these facts, the question arises,, how is it that the public mind has become so strongly impressed by the belief that the rich are growing richer and tlie poor poorer 1 ■In explanation of this, Mr. Mallock - remarks that though relatively to the income enjoyed by the great mass of'the population tho aggregate of what is called the "super-wealthy" class has never before been so small as it is at the present time, "it. has never before been so large relatively to the unchanging area within the limits of which it is displayed and spent." Allowance must also be made for , the fact that the continual and emphatic reiteration \ o a _ statement often leaves the impression on the public mind that it is true, and the fallacy exposed by Mr. Mallock has been so often relocated and so seldom challenged that many people have come to regard it as unchallengeable. The growth of- the wealth of the wealthy "attracts of a; larger number"of people, /who watch it growing like the mango tree of ,an Indian juggler, . and who. though their' 1 own income'has...colkc; tivbly .grown ' much' faster, aro unconscious of this, growth for the precise reason that it is goncral."