THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1911. DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10461, 27 October 1911, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1911. DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

'.tfie evidence given last month at the IRlailway Inquiry in England prompted the London Times to make some obversations which, in the main, are as applicable to New Zealand as they are to the Motherland. A witness expressed the opinion that labour should be paid before a dividend is declared; and, 011 .being asked if he thought the public would be encouraged to find money for railway purposes if there were no reasonable prospect of getting any return, lie replied that if trains could not be run to pay lalbour adequately they should not be run at all. The witness was not prepared to follow the line of reasoning any further; but it must be followed, if any solution ol' the great problem of our time is to bo found. That problem is the equitable distribution of, wealth. The civilised world, having discovered, developed, and applied the means'of creating wealth without end, is now engaged in trying to determine its distribution on right principles. All the social and political movements which distinguish our age—'trade unions, strikes, labour legislation, tlio advance of democracy, inn ■■inerah'o "isms," societies and organisations, investigations, and. inquiries public and private, the collection of statistics, modern forms of taxation and of administration—all the-e and <a vast number of other things included

in the comprehensive term "fcocial reform," are merely aspects or manfestaiioas of the tremendous process of change that is going on and making for the redistribution of wea'th. It began long ago, near the beginning of the last century, but it has gathered weight and speed wth the increase of wealth. At first and fer a long time it was a blind struggle between "haves" and "have nots," but though it still retains a good deal of that element, it is changing in character. The trouble that la now emerging is not the tenacity of the haves" or the weakness of the "have nots," but the intrinsic difficulty of determining the true share of the several* factors engaged in producing wealth. A feeling that the present distribution is inequitable prevails, widely in all classes and is growing; but the problem of what the true distribution should be remains unsolved. It has ibaffled the brains of many able economists who have tried to find a satisfactory formula. Like other problems of social life, it is far too complex to fit any formula. The old simple ideas of Socialism have long pinoe gone 'by the board, though; the crude and obsolete proposition that labour producesr all health- is. still used by Socialist agitators to delude the mob. < It is -their principal weapon, and lias v obviou& attractions for thiose who identify themselves" 1 with the word "labour," especially when they have very little connection wfSh work. Labour's share, according to this hoary fallacy, is the whole of the product. A more moderate and acknowledged claim is that of the "living wage." But the word "living," which sounds so convincing, conceals an ambiguity that really leaves the problem where it was. What is a living wage? It means, no tkrabt, such a wage as will keep the worker efficient—whioh implies not only an adequate supply of the necessaries of life, but also a certain degree of contentment. But these conditions vary indefinitely according to time, place, circumstance, personal qualities and current notions. T:i shot, a living wage, when practb iLy applied, does not differ appreciably , i-roir "as much as lie ci /i get . " I hat leaves us with the que^ior.—What can he get? The answer depends on the claims of the otliT factors, which also require a living wage. If they do not get it, they too go (n strike and hetake themselves els©T where. This'fact, which, seems to be very imperfectly , grasped, was brought out by the remarks we have quoted from.' the Railway Inquiry. The other factorp 'concerned in ; a.iiy business require their living wage as *wrell as labour.,' What, then, is labour's share f We do not know;. but it cannot be so large that less than enough is left for the others; and that point'must be borne in mind by reasonable men. If it is not, they are likely to make a disastrous mistake which, instead, of distributing wealth.- will, dest'rev it for all time.