Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economicsMacassey, Lynden Livingston
History
Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economics
Macassey, Lynden Livingston
Industrial policy -- Great Britain; Labor economics -- Great Britain; Labour Party (Great Britain)
Accepting, as will some sections of Labour, that their demands cannot
be met out of employers’ profits on present output, the alternative
is, they say, that the manufacturer must raise his selling price by an
amount sufficient to cover the extra cost. In this it is assumed, of
course, that the rate of production remains the same. It is a fixed
idea that every manufacturer and the owners in every industry can raise
prices without any difficulty whatsoever. In discussing this delusion,
as I have frequently done, it becomes quite obvious that workmen do not
appreciate the effect which an increase in the cost of production has
in reducing the ambit of the market for the sale of the commodity in
question, or in lessening the demand for it in a specific market, with
consequential curtailment of employment, and undermining of standard
rates of wages. The regulation retort is that any trade not able to pay
proper wages ought not to live. That, of course, depends on what is
“proper,” When the wages are starvation wages, every one will agree the
industry ought not to live. When the wages, though sufficient to cover
(1) subsistence, are not sufficient for (2) reasonable amenities of life,
nor to allow adequately for (3) trade-skill, there may be difference
of opinion, according to the circumstances of the particular industry,
whether it should be maintained or not. When, however, full and adequate
remuneration is paid to cover (1), (2) and (3), it is suicidal policy for
Labour to insist on such advances in wages as must kill the industry.
In advancing the contention that if the employer cannot, out of his
existing profits, pay the advance on wages claimed, it should be added to
the sales price, workmen invariably repudiate as wholly immaterial the
resultant effect on trades other than their own, and especially on the
consuming community. If those claiming the advance are engaged in what is
inelegantly called a “key industry,” that is to say, where their output
is raw or semi-raw material for other industries, it is obvious that
any rise in its cost may inflict serious damage on both employers and
employed in the dependent industries. But the workman’s retort is “let
them pass it on.” I have had that put to me on hundreds of occasions. The
effect on the community is dismissed as quite irrelevant.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account