Unless such a compromise is attempted, industry will soon be in a state of economic warfare, and the division of the workers into skilled and semi-skilled camps will be disastrous. If the trade-unions lose control over labour-not only skilled, but semi-skilled labour also--the natural tendency will be for the employers to coerce and intimidate the workers into accepting lower and still lower wages. Our tremendous war indebtedness will provide the excuse, and a "free labour market" will contribute to the success of this reduction. There is a certain level of necessity to which wages always tend. If wages are high, they tend to be reduced; if they are low, they tend to increase. The tendency to reduction is due to the endeavour of the employer to lower costs, and the acceptance, under pressure, of a lower wage by the worker so long as the wage does not fall below the limit of absolute necessity. The tendency to increase is due to the discontent of the worker when wages are below the necessity level, this leading to strikes, slacking, and inefficiency, which compel the employer to raise wages in order to avoid excessive loss. I am speaking here of skilled labour, where there is always more or less of a demand for workers. In the case of unskilled labour, where the supply is always considerably in excess of the demand, wages are always below the necessity level. There is a constant "regression towards mediocrity," to use Galton's phrase--in other words, a constant tendency towards the average. It is because this average at present is an average of _necessity_ instead of an average of _reasonable comfort_ that Labour troubles recur so frequently; the slightest variation in the price of necessary articles immediately affects the purchasing power of wages. It is evident to all unbiased persons that no one can be efficient without a certain minimum income based on comfort; a minimum based on necessity means inefficiency, because no worker can be really efficient when haunted by the constant fear of debt and misery and starvation. And it is also evident that this minimum of comfort cannot be based on the money a man receives as wages, but on what he needs. What constitutes need is open to argument, but there are certain items of necessity which are beyond dispute. No matter where a person lives, he needs a good roof over his head, food to eat, clothes to wear, fuel, household necessities, and a surplus for emergencies. The cost of living differs in various parts of the United Kingdom, and therefore there should be a scale of wages for each district, based on the purchasing power of wages in that district. This is recognised by the trade-unions, and in consequence union wages are higher in London than in provincial towns.