LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
[Letters of the length of one of our leading paragraphs are often more read, and therefore more effective, than those which fill treble the space.] MANUAL WORKERS AND TILE COST OP THE WAR. (To THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR."1 Sta,—In the latest statement of the Miners Federation of Great Britain, which is signed by Mr. Frank Hodges, it is claimed that the miners are entitled to the extra 2s. a shift for which they have now gone on strike because of the increased cost of living. Without dwelling on the fact that the strike was not, in its inception, a claim for wages to meet this increased cost, but was to absorb some half of the suppositi- tious profits of the industry, it should, I think, be pointed out that it is impossible for every member of the community to have income increased by the extra percentage in the cost of living. The public has become so aocustomed to wage demands being "justified" by such increases, that it has almost come to think that any demand made on this ground should be granted. It has apparently overlooked the fact that any war entails years of suffering and hardship. Even the most cursory reference to history will reveal this. And since the war through which this country has recently passed has been without parallel, it can, I think, be assumed that these years of suffering must be more intense; also that they may be for a longer period.
Take, for example, certain specified industries such as cotton, hosiery, jute, woollen, worsted, linen, silk, lace bleach- ing, brick, glass, pottery, carpet, boot, and shirt; and it in found that there has been an increase in wages, since the week ending July 25th, 1914, of from 106 per cent. (lace) to 211 per cent (cotton). The average increase in all the trades I have mentioned is 177 per cent. We have it on the authority of the Board of Trade Index Figures that the cost of living has since July 25th, 1914, increased by 161 per cent. —I speak with the latest figures available before me—and it consequently follows that in none of the industries which I have mentioned does the cost of the war fall upon any of the manual workers engaged in them. As regards the coal-mining industry, in 1913 the average wage per head was £82. During the June quarter of the present year 1,179,000 persons earned £68,570,000. As the inclu- sion of the Easter and Whitsun holidays in this quarter leads to an unduly large proportion of loss of time, this figure is equivalent to an annual total of about £272,000,000 sterling, which is equal to an average of £282 per head. Thus the all- round average increase per head, as far as the workers in and about the mines are concerned, is in reality 183 per cent, despite the fact that the output of coal has decreased 24 per cent. per annum. As regards the railwaymen, in 1913 the wages paid were 2.40,000,000 sterling; the present wage is equivalent to 2167,000,000 sterling, and per cent. more people are employed. The average increase per person works out at 166 per cent., and it is safe to say that each railway man is, on the average, doing 15 per cent. less work than in 1913. If I remember rightly, the cost of living, as defined by the Ministry of Labour, was on July let, 1920, 152 per cent. higher than on July 1st, 1914. It is evident, therefore, that in July last, despite all the loss of wealth caused by the war, the work-people in-all but three of the industries which I have mentioned had very materially improved their position, and were not paying any part of the cost of the war. Assuming that the numbers employed pre-war are the same as to-day, I believe that the aggregate wage bill of these workers will be found to have increased from 2251,000,000 in pre-war days to £701,000,000 now. In other words, the "excess wages" in these trades and indus- tries is 2450,000,000, which is practically equal to the excess profits of all the industries in the country.
The influence of direct taxation on the income of the working, and what I might term the intermediate, classes is trifling: on the other hand it is very great on that of the middle and upper classes. I do not say that this is other than it should lie. The point I do wish to emphasize is that it is time that Glom who cannot claim to be included in the last-mentioned classes should recognize that they also should contribute towards the cost of the war. Is it right, in view of the facts which I have mentioned, that they should persist in wage claims? Is it right that the miners should now be demanding another 10s. a week? I do not for a moment decry the wonder- -fill efforts of labour during the war to help to free this country from the tyranny of a continental autocracy, but at the same time I do suggest that the manual workers should now recog- nize the fact that even as they took a hand in defeating our enemies they should also now take a hand in bearing their fair share of the cost which that effort entailed to the country as a whole. From figures before me—figures which I believe have been accurately compiled—I find that the net income after payment of direct taxation of the working and inter- mediate classes has risen from £1,338,000,000 sterling in 1913 to 2.3,700,000,000 sterling in the present year; while that of the upper and middle classes has during the same period risen only to 21,200,000,000 from £890,000m0. Allowing for the different number of persons concerned, I believe that the average net income of the latter classes, after paying all direct taxes, which will ultimately be paid or payable in respect of the incomes concerned, has increased by less than 20 per cent. And the cost of living, as we all know, has increased by 161 per rent. Is this just? Is it not time that everybody realized that the burden of shouldering the expenses of the war must be borne by all? Is it not time that wage demands, such as flame now made by the Miners' Federation, should cease?—I
Previous page
