PRODUCTION OF WEALTH

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10280, 15 May 1919, Page 8

PRODUCTION OF WEALTH

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY HOW BEST TO INCREASE IX. “How Best to Increase the Industrial Production” was the subject of an address delivered last night by Mr B. E Murphy, lecturer on economics at Victoria College, under the auspices ot the Central Chamber of .Commerce. Air Leigh Hunt, in the absence through illness of the president, Air C. Al. Luke, presided over a largo attendallMr Alurphy said that he did not propose to criticise the present industrial system. He did not propose to go down to bedrock and consider what ought to be. He thought that that wal not wliat the Chamner of Commerce wanted him to do. He proposed to tako tho present system for granted, 'to assume that it would last our time, and to consider how best under that system they could increase industrial production. In the last analysis, the only method by which man could pro duce wealth was by the application ot labour to land—in other words, by man operating on his material environment. Labour and capital united, under the modern system, to produce wealth. Therefore, there were three directions lo which they must look for increased prsduction. They must look (1) to whatever would increase the efficiency of the employing function; (2) to whatever would increase the efficiency ot labour; and (3) to, whatever would tend to increase the harmonious cooperation of employer and employee. For increased production there must, in the first place, ho efficient plants and up-to-date machinery. In the second place, waste must bo eliminated ; and in the past the moat effective way to do this had been found to be to look for uses for by-products qr so-called refuse. Then, there should be properly co-ordinated subsidiary industries, to fully develop all tho resources and opportunities of u district, as a few big businesses only could not effectively do. Again, industrial plants must not, on tho one hand, be on too small a scale for economic working; and, on the othci hand, they must not bo on too large a scale, as they thereby became unwieldlj, 1 SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY.

To increase productivity to the full there must also be a proper co-ordina-tioii between science—technical science, natural science, and economic science—and industry. Unless industrial concerns were on a fairly largo scale, it was not possible to apply science successfully to industry. . A comparatively small scale .English mdustiiai concern could not afford to employ d large number of chemists in research work; but the great German Kartels, or trusts, often employed as many as 200 trained chemists on such work. Many of the chemists might produce little or no results; but if from time to time only one be-spectacled scientist evolved a new method or produced * by-product that was worth while, ho far more than made ' up for man; failures. (Applause.) There must be a constant fertilising stream of such new discoveries all the time; and.this could bo secured only by business on a large scale, or by co-operation. In Britain, at the present time, many businesses organised on the Whitley system were co-operating for this purpose, and the State was.also undertaking research work to aid industry. It wag fpr these, among other reasons, that the Balfour of Burleigh Commission had not only whitewashed the tug trusts, but actually suggested that, if business undertakings would not voluntarily amalgamate for bigscale production, the .Government should syndicate them by compulsion. The advantages of production on a large scalo were so great that any country that threw them away was bound to fall behind in the race. A country could not succeed if it produced an immense variety of nonstandardised article*. Chaotic and wasteful production by means of many small plants must be got rid of production was to be increased to the fullest. They must at least unite in research and selling syndicates. LABOUR EFFICIENCY.

Dealing with the question of how to increase the efficiency of- labour, Mr Murphy said that a great deal of labour unrest was due to the spectacularly large profits made in some industries; but if proper statistical records were kept, the workers would see that on the whole profits were not unfairly large, and they would also see what they could fairly expect to get in the way of better hours, wages, etc. If they wanted to get more efficient labour, the first .thing was to see that the workers got enough food. They might be inclined to laugh at such a suggestion hero; but Professor Bowley had found at Home that 40 per cent, of the British working-classes could not by honest work get enough food to keep themselves and their families thoroughly physically fit and efficient. Then the workers must have decent clothing and decent houses. The slum problem was not merely a matter of humanitarian sentiment, it was a thing that reacted, and reacted at once upon the efficiency of labour. (Applause.) Other things being equal, if the labourer was to produce efficiently, ho must bo decently fed. Hence they wanted pure food laws. Ho must be decently clothed, and he must ho decently housed. Ho must also bo well educated. There was only one way in which in the long run wo could beat Germany and that was not by the artificial protection of tariffs but by a higher level of education and by tho adoption of tho better methods or production which that education would render possible. (Applause.) GO-SLOW FOLLY. Referring to tho go-slow policy the lecturer said that he believed that the workers were going slow; and under present conditions if his hearers put themselves in tho workers’ place, they could not wonder at it. He regarded the go-slow policy, however, as economic folly, because it meant less production, and therefore higher prices—that was to say, increased cost of living. The higher prices meant that tho people could buy less, and that meant a smaller demand for labour and tended to lower wages. To got rid of tho goslow system, they must get rid of tho present scramble between capital and labour for their respective shares of their joint product; and, in tho absence of any national principle of distribution, wo must regulate distribution by State action. In this country wo were trying to do that by means of tho Arbitration Court. In England they were endeavouring to effect tho same end

by the “revaluation of industry” unuer what was known as “the Whitley system,” which was spreading in the Old Country, and had passed the initial stage. (Applause.) There was a National Standing Industrial Council, consisting of delegates from the District Industrial Councils, which in turn consisted of representatives from tho committees in each business concernrepresentatives both of the management and of the workers. Each of these committees was endowed with the function of shop discipline. Alen were sick ot being irrationally bossed. (Applause and laughter.) They had come to see now that all business belonged to tbe community, and that it should be run, not the way the capitalist liked, not tho way the workers liked, but as the community liked. (Applause.) Under the Whitley system disputes would be settled before they became acute. Causes of irritation would be removed as they arose; and if the men wanted a rise of wages, the statistical information relating to the business m which they were engaged would be put before them and they would be able to see what, if anything, could be fairly conceded to them. (ApplauseA So long as there was only what Carlyle called “the cash nexus” between capital and labour, they could not get rid of the go-slow folly. Under present conditions he would be greatly tempted to go slow himself. (Laughter and applause.) But if ho had an interest in the industry and a share in its control and,it’s prosperity, ho would do his best. (Applause.) To secure such conditions and to introduce a more Tinman spirit into industry was the object of the Whitley system, which put the man who supplied tho labour on the same plane of dignity as the man who supplied the capital. (Applause.) If employer and employee were to work in harmony, they must come to regard business primarily as service and profit as a secondary consideration. (Applause.) . , , A number of questions were asked and answered: and, on the motion of Mr A. Edwards, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded the lecturer.