Christ lived poor, a homeless wanderer, and died the death of a felon. Jay Gould made millions of money, and died one of the wealthiest men in the world. Did each get what he deserved? Did the wealth of Gould and the poverty of Christ indicate the intellectual and moral merits of those two sons of men? Some of us would get whipped if all of us got our deserts; but who would deserve applause and wealth and a crown? In a sporting handicap the weakest have the most start: in real life the strongest have the start and the weakest are put on scratch. And I _have_ heard it hinted that the man who runs the straightest does not always win. CHAPTER XIV TEMPERANCE AND THRIFT I said in the previous chapter that if _all_ the workers were very thrifty, sober, industrious, and abstemious they would be worse off in the matter of wages than they are now. This, at first sight, seems strange, because we know that the sober and thrifty workman is generally better off than the workman who drinks or wastes his money. But why is he better off? He is better off because, being a steady man, he can often get work when an unsteady man cannot. He is better off because he buys things that add to his comfort, or he saves money, and so grows more independent. And he is able to save money, and to make his home more cosy, because, while he is more regularly employed than the unsteady men, his wages remain the same, or, perhaps, are something higher than theirs. That is to say, he benefits by his own steadiness and thrift because his steadiness makes him a more reliable, and therefore a more valuable, workman than one who is not steady. But, you see, he is only more valuable because other men are less steady. If all the other workmen were as steady as he is he would be no more valuable than they are. Not being more valuable than they are, he would not be more certain of getting work. That is to say, if all the workers were sober and thrifty, they would all be of equal value to the employer. But you may say they would still be better off than if they drank and wasted their wages. They would have better health, and they would have happier lives and more comfortable homes. Yes, so long as their wages were as high as before. But their wages would _not_ be as high as before. You must know that as things now are, where all the work is in the gift of private employers, and where wages and prices are ruled by competition, and where new inventions of machinery are continually throwing men out of work, and where farm labourers are always drifting to the towns, there are more men in need of work than work can be found for. Therefore, there is always a large number of workers out of work. Now, under competition, where two men offer themselves for one place, you know that the place will be given to the man who will take the lower wage. And you know that the thrifty and the sober man can live on less than the thriftless man.