The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6th, 1926. PROGRESS AND PROFITS.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 February 1926, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6th, 1926. PROGRESS AND PROFITS.

Wk have hoard a great deal lately from the platform, and in Parliament, remarks the Sydney “Herald lately, about the “capitalist’’—usually preceded by a derogatory adjective—and the “labourer.” the latter term being applied apparently only to those members of the community who are engaged in manual work. It is unnecessary to point out the inherent absurdity of limiting the definition, for the point, is outside the .subject ol our considera-

tion ; hut we desire to continent briefly upon the laws which govern the relationship between employer and employee. The usefulness of this consideration is the greater just now by reason of the fact that the recent introduction ol the lorty-lonr hour week in Australia, lias provided a topical basis for it. Despite the arguments of common sense and the oviden'e of comlnoti expei'lcmo, we have been treated those last few weeks to a stream of assertions that payment of the same wage for less work will in no way increase the cost of the product of that work, nor decrease its value; a theory which might lie more startling if its fatuity were not so patent. Then again, the term “capitalist.,’’ to which we have already referred, is being hurled about as if it Were all opprobrious epithet, its, in-

deed. there is every reason to believe it is intended to be. But the Users of the word etui baldly have paused to consider its real meaning. Not one of them would care we suppose to decry the value of thrift; yet every man who savlcs anything at all from his income, becomes, ip-n facto, a capitalist. And even the most “bloated’’ specimen of the genus has almost certainly arrived at his ii. (‘"-swollen dimension's by a consistent adherence to the Gallic virtue. There is little good -and very often an intolerable ileal of harm—in thus playing with definitions anil dressing up facts with garments coloured to suit the occasion. The laws of economics tlmt govern these relationships lietween employer and employee, between the cost and the profit, be-

tween the supply and the demand, are as intelligible—and inexorable—as those v. Inch govern the social and moral life of the community. An excellent article by .Sir Hugh Bell upon “14 deslry and Economies’’ appears in the December number of the '‘Contemporary Review,” and, dealing as it does with the very matter under such constant discussion among us to-day, it

may ho recommended to the careful attention of all. Sir Hugh Bell, besides being a man well qualified by experience to write with authority on this particular subject, is a member of the firm of contractors now engaged in the construction of the Sydney North Shore Bridge, and as such lias a peculiar and additional claim upon our attention. Upon this matter of the laws of economics as affecting industry. Sir Hugh says that the first of them is this: “The reward of industry can in no case exceed the total amount ol the product." This is the one and only gauge, and into the ques-

tion no consideration of the cost o( living or of the standard of life can he allowed to enter. Tlion. upon the further subject of the hours of labour, Sir Hugh, “for the sake of argument,” admits that nil eight-hour day worked six days a week, “during which the average man should do all he could,” would fairly satisfy the economic Taw. He is not concerned with an eighthour day as such, or with six days a week work, hut- with the product of an industry that shall assure health and fair play to everybody engaged in it. But it is the corollary to this admission that is the important thing. “The man,” says Sir Hugh, “who is paid on this assumption and does less than the amount indicated, is robbing his employer, iust as much ns the grocer who sells the workman fifteen ounces of butter for one pound is robbing him, and both are perpetrating a crime on the purchaser apd on the

community at large.” And implicit in this corollary lies the further one—that any hindrance which diminishes production, either from the employer or the workman, inflicts an injury upon the State. Finally, Sir Hugh gives a most enlightening analysis of the various' items which go to the production and sale, of any particular article. He has considered the figures exhaustively, and shows that the proportion of these items to the total returns is respectively as follows: Fahour, 70 per cent.; administrative salaries five per cent.; sundry charges, such as rent, royalties, taxes, and so on, fifteen per cent. This leaves a balance of ten per cent, ‘‘to reward those who have to provide the article and to meet all the costs of such provision.” And these last, it must he remembered, have to wait until the sale of i.te article realises the sum which will return them this ten per cent. Of course, those figures are for Britain; but the bitterest- enemy of the capitalist class will hardly care to assert that they are- likely to ho worse—from the employees’ point of view in Australasia. We think that most people will read this analysis with .surprise, and with the feeling that in the treatment accorded him by Labour orators, the devil of capitalism has been given a great deal less than bis due. But, when all is said, the great value of Sir Hugh Bell’s article lies in the proof which it gives that industry and economics must work together. that- the laws which govern both are reasonable and can be understood; and that any theory not conformable to their decrees, if put upon the rails of practice, is like to run to irreparable ruin.