WAGES AND THE MACHINE.

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20268, 10 August 1937, Page 9

WAGES AND THE MACHINE.

(To the Editor;) Sir, —Apparently I have misunderstood “Venator,” and am sorry, but that admission leaves me in the position of not understanding your correspondent at all. If he raises no objection to the use of machinery, then probably we have little ground for controversy. I certainly understood that he blamed the machine, especially the cotton-gin and a razor-blade-making Invention, for creating much unemployment. I asked- simply that the argument should be applied to the milking-machine and the separator, but possibly that line will not now prove of value, I was, however, Interested In the, to me, strange contention that the benefit of these two machines to the producers had been "almost counterbalanced” by the spread of weeds and pests. What Is the connection? If we must not contend that an argument regarding “all Improvements” should be applied to, say, two of them, why state that the benefits from only two machines has been cancelled out by weeds and pests? Is not that an Impossible contention to prove? If the machines have labour to fight the pests then the benefit to the oountry Is great, for otherwise the labour would have been employed In the sheds' and additional labour, if available, would have had to be found for the war against the pests, thus Increasing the producers’ expenses and so making the position of many very unsafe. The faot that these machines liberated labour for this vital work is, really, 'something In favour of the machine, and not a debit Item. Then regarding what “Venator” calls my Socialist concept. That was never meant. I asked if the use of machines assisted In the concentration of wealth, meaning, of course, the machines mentioned. And, I take It, “Venator” says “Yes," for he repeats that the wages of the machine have not been distributed, or does he mean the wages of only some machines? This line of demarcation would be difficult to follow. Would it not be nearer the mark to say that In many cases the wages of the machine have been saved, not spent? The Illustration regarding harvesting machinery was not altogether conclusive. It may have lowered the demand for unskilled labour at Morrinsville, but the manufacture of the plant must have meant more employment along many lines, and for the most part skilled labour. The problem of the transference of labour is a knotty one.—l am, etc., H. BURNLEY. Cambridge, August 8.