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)
be diverted to the production of necessaries, with consequent reduction
of prices and improvement in real wages of workers as the supply of
necessaries increases. As capital more or less automatically tends to
flow to whatever class of production affords the greatest remuneration,
it is really only the consumer who can control in what particular class
of production it is invested. A question will always remain: What is
unreasonable luxury? That is, of course, a question which each person
must answer for himself, but anything, as I view the matter, is a
reprehensible luxury when its production results in the consumption of
wealth or attraction of labour which is needed for more urgent national
purposes. If any consumer is in doubt, he can save instead of spend. He
can invest his savings in industry, or, if not, leave them on deposit
with his bank, which can do it for him. By this means new permanent
industries will be started, production of necessaries increased, wages
and purchasing power improved, and a definite service rendered to the
community by the establishment of undertakings which, if sound and
properly managed, will supply employment, and increase and circulate
wealth in a way the production of a luxury could not attempt to rival.
The consumer has a duty nowadays to think.
There is a much smaller supply of wealth than most persons realize,
which accentuates the duty of every person to use his income in the
manner most beneficial to the community. In his book _The Division of the
Product of Industry_, Professor Bowley shows (p. 47) that if we take the
tax-paying income for 1911 of residents in the United Kingdom derived
from home sources, viz. £742,000,000, and from it subtract (i) earned
incomes—giving no earner more than £160 per annum—(ii) farmers’ incomes,
and (iii) endowed charities, the balance left is only £550,000,000.
Subtracting from this latter figure the pre-war amounts required for
national saving and national expenses there remained only 200 to 250
millions “which on the extremist reckoning can have been spent out of
home-produced income by the rich or moderately well-off on anything
in the nature of luxury.” This sum would have been little more than
sufficient to bring the average wages of adult men and women up to a
minimum of 35_s._ 3_d._ weekly for a man and 20_s._ for a woman, which
Mr. Rowntree in _The Human Needs of Labour_ estimates as reasonable—with
prices as at July, 1914. Professor Bowley puts it in yet another way.
Before the war, there were about 10,000,000 households each containing
on an average about 4½ persons, of which nearly 2 in each household
were wage-earners. If the total home income had been divided equally
round, the average net income per family, after all rates and taxes were
paid and an adequate sum invested in home industries, would have been
nominally £153 from home income, which, if the balance of income brought
home from abroad and not re-invested abroad were also divided equally
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