Rangitikei Advocate. Tuesday, February 9, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9367, 9 February 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. Tuesday, February 9,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

AT the recent meeting of the Sydney Labour Council allusion was made to the increased [productivity of labour as one of the reasons for reducing the hours of labour and increasing the rates of pay. Even a Labour Council can hardly he so ignorant as to imagine that labourers work as hard to-day as they did in the past, and unless we suppose that the Council was making an attempt at humour we must look for some other explanation of the alleged increased productivity of labour. This can only be found in the fact that the introduction of machinery has had the effect of producing a greater output. It is, therefore rather the capital expended by the employer that produces the results than the alleged greater productivity of labour. On this ground then labour has no right to demand batter conditions, and the claim must be justified on other grounds. ( There seems a fear on the part of many workers that they will be injured if they produce too much and that it is desirable in the interests of labour to make any work undertaken last as long as possible. It is not difficult, however, to show th»t this view is an entirely mistaken one. Let us suppose that to-morrow the work of every man in the country suddenly became twice as efficient as at present. On the assumption that the demand for goods remained unaltered many men would be out of work because their services would not be required. But this assumption has no foundation in the facts of actual life. With the increased supply of goods prices would fall enormously and the demand for them would increase at an even greater rate. It is true that this would not be the case in all trades, for example if the supply of bread in the country ware doubled it could not all be consumed, but on the other hand if the prices of bicycles or motor oars was halved owing to increased production the demand would be more than doubled, aud taking industries all round there can be no doubt that the demand for the goods produced would increase with great rapidity. Without any increase in wages the worker wonldhenefit enormously, because the cost of absolute necessities would be much reduced and a far larger balance would remain for luxuries of all sorts. There is not the slightest danger' of all round over production, because the desires of man increase faster than his opportunities of satisfying them. It is true that miscalculation of the probable future demand may lead to over-production in certain industries, but even this is not because people do not desire the goods, but because they have not money to buy them at“the price demanded. The'present slump in the timber industry is largely due to the fact that ■ sawmillers went on producing timber as if the boom in building was to continue for ever, and refused to lower prices to stimulate the flagging demand. Such mistakes as this will always occur. To suppose, how* ever, that more work can be made by going slow is to misunderstand the whole industrial situation. The chain of cause and effect, as we understand it, is as follows: —The worker reduces his output, prices rise, demand slackens and less men are required to provide the diminished supply. On the other hand if the worker produces more, goods can bo sold at lower prices, the purchasing power of wages Increases, and there is an all round stimulation of demand. Thus we are led to believe that the worker who does as little work as possible in return for his pay is the enemy not only of his own class but also diminishes the prosperity of the whole of the community.