PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20255, 26 July 1937, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule Is complied with, their letters will not appear.

RATIONALISATION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I am Interested in this rationalisation of industry mentioned by the Ministers, more particularly as to the effect on employment and on wages. The dairy industry, I understand, is being rationalised, meaning that many companies are ceasing operations. In North Canterbury, it was stated in your paper some time ago, they had been reduced from six to two. Now, if the remaining companies, as said, can handle the larger business efficiently, then they will not need to absorb the labour thrown idle by the closing down of these factories. Is there any plan for the transfer of the labour? The whole system seems involved, although I suppose meant to simplify things. If economies can be effected by concentrating the business, then •would it not also apply to shops? If the smaller ones were closed the larger could handle the Increased business more efficiently, and so reduce prices to the consumers. I wish some expert would set out plainly Just what this rationalisation aims at. Once I lost my Job through a merger, made to effect economies, and there is no difference in being made to join the unemployed that way or simply being dismissed. —I am, etc., SIMPLE SIMON. Hamilton, July 24.

CONFLICTING IDEAS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l-have Just read a* statement, made by the Minister of Industries, and I seem to remember something similar being said by .other Ministers some time ago. Now. during the last few weeks we have had reports that Mr Nash has been negotiating with Great Britain, Germany and Canada for trade agreements, and that means the exchange of goods on a freer basis. It looks as though the ideas conflicted. How can a Government protect local industries and at the same time, by agreements, offer bigger markets to countries that export goods to us? If Mr Nash could not offer to take more German goods, let us say, how could he get any agreement? Then if more German goods come, they must compete with local products and all other imported goods.

Mr Nash has been claiming that our tariffs are low, and so in favour of Britain, so that he could hardly agree to lnorease them and make them less favourable —that is, If he wants to have larger markets there for our exports. I cannot see how, at one and the same time, any Government can promise to protect local industries and agree with overseas countries to give them bigger markets here. Gan it be done?—l am, etc., FREE TRADE. Cambridge, July 24.

WAGES AND THE MACHINE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —While I am pleased to find Mr Kenah Indulging In a sturdy defence of Mr Henry Ford’s introduction of high wages and shorter hours, I cannot help contrasting this attitude with Mr Ken&h’s earlier one of condemning short hours and high wages as “a poison in our system,” and exhorting all and sundry to “work for the sheer love of it.” Whether Mr Kenah has changed his views or Is merely being inconsistent I am unable to say. I note Mr Kenah’s claim that he has replied to all my arguments, but on looking through the correspondence I am unable to verify it. My claim is that the rate at which labour-saving devices are being ini reduced in industry is more rapid than the rale at which production is increased. Inventions such as the cotton gin and the motor car have increased employment —for a period, but only until the rate of efficiency catches up to the rate of production. I have already shown how the numbers engaged in the motor industry are being reduced. A friend has sent me a cutting from an American journal which estimates now at 4,000,000 the number of workers threatened by Rust Brothers’ new cotton-picking machine. Mr Kenah claims that they will be absorbed into some other industry. Will he tell us which one?

It is pertinent at this point to quote Mr Glenn Frank, president of the University of Wisconsin: “The ultimate end of technical progress is to provide every man with the comforts and conveniences that to-day are reserved for millionaires. The inventors and engineers are fighting want and poverty; they are fighting slavery; their object is to univcrsali.se wealth, power, leisure, beauty, happiness.”

In opposition to the scientists we find the National Party—exemplified by Mr Doldge and Mr Kenah—telling us to “work for the sheer love of it” and to restrict our production whenever the price is forced down to uneconomic. levels by the deflationary policy of the money power. There are two ways of dealing with the paradox of “poverty amidst plenty.” One is to abolish the poverty; the other method —favoured by the National Party—is lo sabotage the plenty. In his defence of the deliberate restriction of production Mr Kenah says: “Does ‘Venator’ think that producers are going to produce commodities at ruinous prices?” it. is somewhat peculiar lo find in Mr Kenah an advocate of higher prices when he started off by enumerating the advantages of low prices, but readers of his letters will no longer be surprised at such a somersault. There is a remedy for low prices; the remedy is monetary expansion and the abandonment of deflation. —I am, etc., VENATOR. Hamilton, July 24. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Many people have followed the correspondence regarding the wages of the machine with interest. Personally I would like a lit He more light on Ihe proposed process by which the said wages would be distributed.— l am, etc., STUDENT. Hamilton, July 24.

WAGES,

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In this, my final reply to “Venator,” I must again accuse him of making me say what he wished me to say. This time he says I have strongly advocated low' wages. I have never ■done anything of the kind, but I do deplore a rate of wages beyond the power of employers to pay, thus leading to unemployment. "Venator” goes on to say: "Mr Kenah must either be in favour of high wages or low wages.” Could any statement be more Illogical? But why expect logio from a Douglas Credit advocate? He finds my statement that wages In New Zealand must be tied to export prices Interesting. Well a fact that contains in itself the prosperity of the country should be interesting. Any Government that Ignores that fact must meet disaster.

Thank you for the space given me. I regard the Press as the greatest source of education in the world, and any Government that attempts to muzzle it will speedily meet its Waterloo.

I think it is the duty of a citizen, in public and private, to challenge the dangerous ideas that are abroad today. The fallacy that machines cause unemployment, the fallacy that there is no need to work, the fallacy that somewhere there are vast sums to be had for nothing, and, last but not least, the fallacy that by increasing wages you Increase purchasing power.—l am, etc.. W. P. KENAH. Raglan, July 23.

COMING EVENTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Interest Is beginning to concentrate on the ooming session, and opinions differ as to the “features” of the political programme. To my mind, the stage is being prepared for a wellorganised movement to secure a greater measure of protection for New Zealand Industries. The usual signs are beginning to be noticeable, and I think that those who wish to see the cost of living kept down as much as possible should begin to stir themselves. Last session much was done that raised manufacturing costs, and I was more than a little surprised at the quiet way it was received by the manufacturers. They really did nothing but make a gesture of protest. Now I seldom venture on political prophecy, but I shall predict that a big bid will be made to secure the quid pro quo in the form of higher tariffs. The usual lines will be taken —the higher costs, the growing competition from imports, the need for creating employment, and all that sort of thing. The aim will be to make the domestic market the preserve of the local manufacturer. The farmers would be well advised to study the position closely, for the manufacturer-labour combination will be powerful, and in this instance they will both see for themselves distinct advantages. Perhaps at a later date I shall, with your permission, outline what a regard as significant moves, but meantime I should like to see the farmers, and consumers generally, showing an alertness to the position.—l am, etc., OLD LIBERAL. Hamilton, July 23.