MR WITHY AND THE MARKET RATE OF WAGES.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 482, 21 June 1890, Page 5

MR WITHY AND THE MARKET RATE OF WAGES.

The other day we commented upon the re marks made by Mr Withy when addressing his constituents concerning what he termed the market rate of wages, and more especially its application to the railway servants of New Zealand. Mr Withy, in reply, stated f hat a verbatim report of his address was about to be published, which would cause his views on this subject to be better understood.

- The pamphlet alluded to is now printed and lies before us, and on page 9 we find a section covering over two pages, headed “ Does the Railway Wage Act as a Standard ?” Mr Withy made this speech, he had the opportunity of reading and correcting it in proof, and” before it was issued for publication, he introduced the section with these words : “Now I come to a point on which I know many of you are sensitive. We may therefore conclude that the address represents Mr Withy’s carefully and elabor-ately-prepared argument on this very important subject. We have read this section carefully more than once, and the more vve read it, the more surprised are we that a successful business man like Mr Withy, a man of great experience and more than ordinary intelligence, could cram so many utterly illogical statements into so small a compass, and back them up by such glaringly weak illustrations as he has done. There is yet one other matter that causes us some surprise, namely, the noted remarks and phrases where the words “ hear hear” and “ applause ” appear. If, as we presume, his audience consisted chieiiy of working men, it seems incredible that they could have honestly applauded the remarks so noticed.

He first alludes to the statement made by the Secretary of the Railway Servants’ Society, who said “It must be apparent that a reduction of wages in so large a Government Department will act also as a precedent in reducing wages generally throughout the colony.” To this Mr Withv replies: —“The last time that I spoke here” I referred to this belief and criticised it, and now that it is given as a formal opinion I will again criticise it. I am exactly of the same opinion as in 1888, —that the railway servants should nob be paid more than the market rate of wages.” He goes on to say: “I disclaim any enmity at all towards the working man, bub I make no pretence of posing as his friend specially. I have always refused to pose as the working man’s friend. Ido not believe in any man I have ever seen who posed as the working man’s friend.” This was received with applause and “ hear hear.”

Now,the question which we touched on the other day arises—What is a working man ? and why should any class be specially designated “a working class” when God and nature ordain that all shall work or starve ? From the way Mr Withy speaks of this class, he recognises that it exists, although he bears its membei-s no animosity, and why should he? Without wishing in the smallest degree to be personal, Mr Withy, like, many other large employers of labour, appears to have done very well out of it. Nob that there was anything discreditable in that. In taking the largest margin that was obtainable between the market rate of labour and the market value of the products of industry, Mr Withy merely followed the accepted principles of free trade. Every employer does the same now. The law of competition in a majority of instances would compel him to do so, whether he liked it or not. Still, that does nob alter the fact, and there is no use in shirking it, or evading its logical deductions.

There is not a millionaire in existence who could have attained his riches, had all those with whom he came in contact, and out of whom he made his wealth, received each one nob a market rate of wages, as gauged by competition and the worker’s own dire necessities, bub a fair share of the wealth he produced. Has Mr Withy ever studied the question of Trades Unions ? If he has, does he not know that by combination and united action mechanics belonging to certain trades are enabled to force from their employers more than the so-called market rate ? Were there no unions and no combinations of workers to secure justice for themselves, does Mr W 7 ibhy think that the labour of more or less highly skilled mechanics would ba paid as it is now, and men work the limited hours they do now ? As we have said more than once, a market rate is that rate which a man is compelled to take in consequence of his necessities ; it is nob, it never has been, as it ought to be, a fair equivalent for the work performed.

Bub we must hasten on to the most wonderful, but beautifully deceptive, illustration which Mr Withy alludes to as the one “I gave you when addressing you last year.” The member for Newton is evidently proud of this illustration. Pointing to the Chairman’s table, he says, “ I asked you to consider that on this table here was a pile of coin, and this coin represented tho share secured by labour in the wealth produced the previous year in New Zealand. I pointed out the heap was less than it was in former years, and the reason was the total wealth produced in the colony had become less. I asked the railway men to walk up and take exactly the amount they had been in the habit of taking, and they took it without anyabatement; then I called the outside working men, and they took what was left.” The latter, of course, as the pile was less than the previous year, came off minus. “ Does not,” pathetically asks Mr Withy, “ the whole fall upon the outside man ?”—and in response there was loud applause. Well, Mr Withy, let us look at this matter squarely. The heap of coins in 1888 represented the wages you say. The following year in 1889 the pile of coins was less, “ because the wealth produced in the colony had become less.”

We ask our readers to ponder over this statement made by one of New Zealand’s legislators. He assarts that the value of the wealth produced in New Zealand in 1889 was less than that produced in 1888.

Now, Mr Withy, if this statement is correct, how came our exports of New Zealand produce in ISB9 bo be £1,687,347 in excess of those of 1888? The earnings of the Railway Department were also greater. It is quite true that the aggregate wage fund was less, simply because, with the shrinkage of borrowing, there was a large withdrawal of capital from channels of

labour that were not producing realisable wealth. To have been strictly accurate in applying his illustration, Mr Withy ought to have addressed his audience in something like the following terms :—“Gentlemen, —You see this vast pile of wealth on the table. Do you know what that represents? I will tell you. It represents the surplus wealth for one year of the colony of New Zealand. I may say that this is strictly surplus, for wages have been taken out, and are on the table in the next room. Interest has been paid, and so has rent, bub this glorious heap has yet to be divided. You see it is much larger than last year’s heap, and double as large as the heap of the year before. What is bliat you say ? Is labour going to get its share of this surplus ? Oh, dear, no ; labour’s share is in the next room on another table ; labour’s share is wages, a market rate preferred ; but those greedy ■ railway men have rather upset the wages calculation, for they have taken more than the market rate. That of course does not ’ interfere with our heap, for as you see, it has very largely increased in size since last year. The sufferers are what I berm the “outside workers,”or the “ market rate of wages ” men, those who from inability bo unite and other causes are unable to exact terms from their employers. lam very sorry for you, but the only remedy I can suggest is to break up the Unions, and so place yourselves all on the same market level. Then you would all share alike, they would get less and you would get more. (Loud cheers and great applause from the “ outside workers.”) In other words, the application of the market rate of wages in this case simply means using the necessities of the unemployed thousands to lessen the share of profits divisible among labour. That is to say—to bake a more lucid illustration than Mr Withy’s heap of gold—supposing that the cost of producing a pound of wool in 1888 was 6d and the selling price was Bd, if by the greater competition of labour the cost of production could b 9 reduced to sd, the amount distributed in wages would, it is true, be smaller, but not, as Mr Withy would have had his hearers believe, because the workers engaged in producing wool, through contending for their old standard wages, took more than their fair share, nor yet" because wool was worth les3, but because competition forced down the rate of wages and thus increased the profits of the wool grower. As a matter of fact, the produced wealth of this country has increased year after year in a most marvellous manner, bub remarkable to relate, the tendency of the market rate of wages i 3 still downward, and the tendency of the over-burdened taxpayer is still to flee from the country. No, Mr Withy ; the produced wealth of the colony this year is greater than that of last year, and last year greater than that of the year before. Your pet illustration therefore is inexcusably careless and thoroughly illogical. “Auckland Star,” June 16.