Again, the laborer is in a worse position than the seller of almost any other commodity. For what he does not sell to-day disappears absolutely. If he does not dispose of it now he cannot to-morrow. A fruiterer can keep his oranges until the next day, if he is not satisfied with the current price. But to-day's labor can be sold only to-day. And if it be not sold, it is probable that the workman will be physically less fit to-morrow. Yet even if he does accept the wage offered, and it is less than enough to repair the daily waste of force, the same result will be brought about gradually. He is, therefore, confronted by the dilemma of taking what the idle are willing to accept, or becoming idle himself. It needs only the imagining of one's self in the position of the unemployed to see that there is hardly any limit below which the wages of the weakest may not fall. A man without special skill and without savings, with not only himself but others to look out for, will be glad to get even what he knows will not completely support him. "Without organization and by means of individual bargaining, wages are drawn downward toward the level set by what idle men will accept, which may be less than they will produce after they receive employment and will surely be less than they will produce after they have developed their full efficiency. When labor makes its bargains with employers without organization on its side, the parties in the transaction are not on equal terms and wages are unduly depressed. The individual laborer offers what he is forced to sell, and the employer is not forced to buy. Delay may mean privation for the one party and no great inconvenience or loss for the other. If there are within reach a body of necessitous men out of employment and available for filling the positions for which individual laborers are applying, the applicants are at a fatal disadvantage."[48] Such is the opinion of a conservative economist with an especially kindly feeling towards the competitive system. It would seem, therefore, that the competitive organization of industry has a tendency to crush out the weaklings. How numerous are these weaklings, we shall now discuss. FOOTNOTES: [36] L. c., pp. 121, 122, 134, 152; U. S. Bur. Lab., "Men's Ready-Made Clothing," p. 303. [37] Butler, p. 301; U. S. Bur. Lab., "Women Wage-Earners in Stores and Factories," pp. 109, 178. [38] U. S. Bur. Lab., l. c., p. 22; Report Minneapolis Vice Commission, 1911, p. 127. [39] U. S. Bur. Lab., "Glass Industry," p. 54. [40] U. S. Bur. Lab., "Industrial Hygiene," 1908, p. 79. [41] W. Cunningham, "Christianity and Social Questions," pp. 122-123: London, 1910. [42] "The Socialised Church," p. 120, address on "The Relation of the Church to Employees in Department Stores," by Hanford Crawford, B.S.: St. Louis, N. Y., 1909. [43] Cf. T. N. Carver, "Distribution of Wealth," p. 31: N. Y., 1908. [44] Cf. H. R. Seager, "Introduction to Political Economy," pp. 53-54: N. Y., 1908.