The Guardian AND EVENING STAR, With which is incorporated “ The West Coast Times.” FRIDAY, JUNE 17th, 1921. THE BASIC WAGE.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1921, Page 2

The Guardian AND EVENING STAR, With which is incorporated “ The West Coast Times.” FRIDAY, JUNE 17th, 1921. THE BASIC WAGE.

In a recent publication “The Next Step”, by Mi - A. lb Piddington, Tv.C. is a very interesting discussion, remarks a reviewer, of the basic wage, and of the various difficulties to which its application has given rise. He traces the history of the doctrine and analyses the principles which have guided the Courts in their determinations. Mr Piddington re.-emphasises

the fallacy underlying the present system, which postulates an illusory doinestc* unit. Every wage-earner is assumed to be married and to have a given number of children—two or three, as the case may be, no fewer and no more. This, in Mr Piddington’s opinion is the c ause of much of the industrial unro.st in Australia. With each advance in wages the position of the bachelor or the childless family has improved, but the family containing more children than the law recognises has become worse off. The finding of the Basic Wage Commission last year finally demonstrated the impossibility of continuing to follow this unsatisfactory principle. It is beyond the capacity j>f Australian industry to pay to all and sundry the wage which was held to he necessary to support a family of five in reasonable .comfort. “The sufficiency of the country’s production to pay "a supposed wage varies primarily with the number of workers in the Country. The present basic wage system distributes the total wage share of production on the assumption that each worker has n wife and three children. This amounts to postulating the existence of 2,100,000 workers’ children whom we know to be non-existent. But the existence of children requires the existence of a given proportion of adult male workers to produce wealth for them, the ratio being in Australia 10 male workers for every nine children. If, then, we “invent” 2,100,000 children we must invent also about 2,330,000 adult male workers to produce the necessary wealth for them.” To these many inventions we must add an equivalent number of mythical mothers, “Thus the present system distributes the wages share of production as if our total population was 12 millions instead of nearly hi millions.” As Mr Piddington observes, such fallacious inventions court disaster. The remedy lies in motherhood endowment a policy which is now being advocated throughout the civilised world. But, while the principle is widely accepted there is considerable difference of opinion with regard to the manner in which effect should he given to it. Mr Piddington would allow everv employee enough to support a man and wife, for even if he he a bachelor it is desirable that he should he able to save with a view to equipping a home and marrying at an early age. For each dependent child a weekly grant would be made out of a fund raised by •> tax upon 'employers, who would pay a fix'bd amount per head of their employees, whether or no the latter 4iad ' children; otherwise the tendency would be for bachelors or childless husbands to receive preference in employment.

This proposal is similar to that embodied in the ill-fated, Children’s Maintenance Bill and.its principle has been substantially adopted in the Australian Federal Public Service. Incidentally Mr Piddington discusses the idea of financing motherhood endowment by means of a State lottery, and is decidedly unenthusiastic about it. His book* which deals exhaustively and comprehensively vith the whole subject of the basic wage and motherhood endowment, is a most valuable contribution to the economic literature of Australia.