SOME PLAIN TALK.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8762, 13 March 1907, Page 4

SOME PLAIN TALK.

(Maiiawatu Times.)

I see that the slaughtermen struck and soma of them have been fined. Why did they demand higher wages? Well, some say it was because a few Australians told them they ought to get more, but it is more probable that they did so because they found that the wages they earn do not now buy all they require.. But they earned good wages, did they not ? In a sense they did: But the true measure of wages is what the money earned will purchase. Here £5 per week would be affluence, bnt at say Klondyke it might mean scarcely a bare existence. And you must remember that the best wages paid to those who labour with their hands do not represent great incomes. The average is only a living wage, because there arc many in search of work, and while at times there is no work a man has to live and maintain his family. Just as the farmer, for instance, has to take the bad seasons and low prices with the good seasons and high prices, and the commercial man to sometimes work at loss and other times at profit. Precisely, but the increased cost of living injures the workers more than it does others, because the margin of profit on the labour they sell is very small: But what has increased the cost of living ? Surely in this country with so many natural advantages living should be cheaper than in almost any other! So it would be but for the labour legislation and the policy of shutting out cheap supplies for the many to confer alleged benefit on the few. I do not quite understand it. Surely what is called "protection" must benefit? But whom does it protect ? The word "protection" is misleading: It does not protect the majority of tlio workers. On the contrary it compels all to pay more for the supplies they require, and is therefore robbery of the whole community for the supposed benefit of a few. It is restriction, not protection, and it merely means that all the people are deprived of the benefits of cheaper services that others are so willing to give us that we havo foolishly erected high tariff barriers to prevent them doing so: But are there not a majority of workers who benefit by what is called "protection " ? By no means. The last census returns availabfe" show that of the whole population only 340,230 are breadwinners, and deducting from this number the professional, commercial, and other breadwinners who cannot possibly be benefited by the lovying of high duties, we find that there are only 44,752 who are working in factories which exist because restrictive dutios are levied on articles similar to thoso they produce. I always thought that all the workers benefited by "protection" and that this was why meat freezers, carriers, &c, affiliated their unions with those of the protected factory hands. No class of workers can possibly benefit by restricting imports—even the factory hands themselves are injured. Besides there is the balance of the population, the dependents, &c, who also suffer, and these constitute more than half of the population. How can it possibly benefit a worker in the sawmill, flaxmill, meat-freezing works, carrying trade, agricultural, dairying, railway service, or any of the army of clerks and commercial persons in receipt of fixed salaries, to have the price of clothing, boots, and every other requirement artificially raised ? He cannot possibly benefit, and his only remedy is to get his wages increased, which in some cases is impossible, or means the employment of fewer. I see that clearly now. But how does this affect the price of what we ourselves produce in the natural industries? By making the cost of production greater. Obviously if all classes have to pay more to support one class they must get more for their products or services, or they will work at a loss. Then the " protective " policy is really at the bottom of all the trouble ? Precisely. And if it was abolished every class would benefit, and every genuine industry would be-prosperous. And would not those now engaged in the protected industries suffer? No. All industries which could or should be carried on would be relieved of a serious handicap, and would therefore be more prosperous, The consequent development of the natural industries would supply employment for many more workers than there are now in New Zealand. Besides, under a high tariff, there are always more factories established than are required, and one result is that in these factories the wages are lower than in unprotected industries, because there arc greater numbers trained in them who are subsequently seeking employment. The proof of this is found in the fact disclosed in the Year Book that in the most highly protected industries the wages are lower than in any other, and there is more of the cheaper female labour employed.in them. Then it seems to me that in the interests of all those who have to earn their living the first work of our politicians should be to abolish those high duties. But would not the revenue suffer if a lower tariff was levied ? Your question proves that you did not think before you spoke. A protective duty is intended to shut out imports, and this means that it causes loss of revenue. ' An ideal protective tariff would shut out all imports, and from what then would customs duties be derivable ? Then if the protective duties were abolished and duties levied only for revenue purposes there would be more money flowing into the Treasury which is now diverted into the pockets of a few factory owners ? Yes. There would be so much more revenue that all special taxation might be safely abolished, and instead of having to borrow a million or so every year we could do all public works required and begin to lepay some of tho millions of debt with which the colony has been loaded. And, best of all, the cost of living would be re. duced by at least one half, and of course the cost of production would be proportionately lowered.