The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1889. TRADES UNIONS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1938, 3 September 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1889. TRADES UNIONS.

We would have to congratulate Mr Bryars on hia essay on “Trades Unions ” only for the fact that he has since caused it to he published that he did not defend strikes. The whole tenor of his argument from beginning to end was that combinations amongst working people were absolutely necessary, else wages would fall to too low a level. Strikes are the only weapons with which combinations can assert their position, and if Mr Bryars dis-i approve of strikes he reduces trades unionism to a nullity, and his essay: to rubbish.

Mr Bryars’s essay was partly historical, partly explanatory, while twothirds of it was philosophic. We have no fault to find with the historic and explanatory parts, but we entirely disagree with its philosophy. He says that “ a general rise in wages does not circulate more money.” This is erroneous. Work people would have more money if they got more wages, and would circulate it. Then he says; “ Even if there did happen to be a rise in all prices, its only effect would be that money, having become of less value in that particular case, while it remained of its former value everywhere else, would be exported until prices would be brought down to the former level.” We have not the slightest conception of how a rise in all prices can make money become of less value in a particular case. A rise in all prices must lift the price level en t® a higher plane, and the only effect this can have on money is to increase the demand for it, because more money will be required to purchase the goodsl Goods will be dearer, and consequently it will take more money to bay them; In that case, when there is an increased demand on money at home, why should money be exported, as Mr Bryars says it would ? Money is only exported when foreign investments offer better interest, or when it is required for purchasing goods in foreign markets. Mr Bryars con* templates that it is to be shovelled out of the country in order to bring down prices. He says in the next sentence: “But, even on the supposition that the rise of prices could be kept up, yet, being general, it would not compensate the employer, for, though his money returns would be greater, his outgoings would he increased in the same proportion,” Here is an absurdity. All prices increased, yet the employer is not compensated for an increase in wages, Supposing there is a rise of ten per cent, all round, what does it mean but that the employer is exactly in the same position as he was before the rise ? He pays ten per cent, more for what he buys, he gets ten per cent, more for what he sells; his position has not changed. He says again: “If when wages rose all prices rose in the same ratio, the workman would be no better off than when his wages, were low.” This is very plausible, but the wageearners would gladly run the risk, It would give them the handling of more money, and, if they were disposed to save, it would give them a better opportunity for doing so. It would do the general public good, because the work-people would have more money to spend, and they would circulate it. Then follows some equally erroneous philosophy, not worth noticing till we come to the following sentence:— “The aggregate incomes of the purchasing public not being increased, if more is spent on some articles less would be spent on others.” The meaning of this is that the public has only a certain amount to spend,and cannot spend any more. This is erroneous. Included in the purchasing public are large

numbers of high salaried men, as wellf as men with fixed incomes. These are so well off that a rise of 10 per cent, in prices would not cause them to deny themselves one grain of pepper. I there was a rise of 10 per cent, these would have to pay 10 per cent, more for their living than they do new, instead of hoarding it, and investing it, perhaps in foreign consols. Let us suppose that the amount such people spend in England yearly is £10,000,000; if a rise in prices of ton per cent, were to take place it means that they would have to put into circulation £1,000,000 a year more than they do now. This would permeate through the industrial hive, and increase the purchasing power of others to that amount. But £10,000,000 is only like a drop in the ocean as compared with the expenditure of the wealthy classes. The incomes of the upper and middle classes of England in 1883 was 818 millions, or an average of £4OO a year to every family. Arise of 10 per cent, would not causo these people to deny themselves anything. Supposing they spend half their incomes yearly, or £400,000,000, and that a rise in prices causes them to spend ten per cent, of the other half, that .would mean the circulation of another £40,000,000 a year amongst the industrial classes. Then what would it be if all Europe, America, and the civilised world are to be considered P It is true that the total sum of money in the world would not be increased by an increase of wages and prices, unless the volume of trade demanded more of it. If trade made such a demand money would be found. Does Mr Bryars know that our note; issue contracts and expands with the demands of trade? Probably not. Another point is that Mr Bryars thinks that some of the actions of trades unions are not reconcilable with public morality. Eine sentiments these, but why not ask the wealthy syndicate which crushes the smaller traders the same question. 'We lire in, a “ God-for-us-all-and-the-Devil-take-the-hindmost ” age, and each trade has the same right, to look after its own interests, just as each individual has to look after his own business without the slightest regard as to the consequence to the general public. Many of the methods of trades unions are opposed to real liberty, but the necessity for their employment is forced on the unionists by circumstances otherwise beyond their control. They are, however, not so bad as many of the . methods capital employs to further its own ends, and therefore not more immoral.