Scientific American Supplement, No. 481, March 21, 1885 by Various
V >>
Various >> Scientific American Supplement, No. 481, March 21, 1885
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 | 9
The first three sections of the table, being either simply enumerative or
collective in character, are easily understood without illustration, but
an example of the "Comparative" section, marked Table B, hangs on the
wall, and shows all the final comparisons at a glance.
_Table B_.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
---------------------------------------
Classification. |Massac- | Great | Massac- | Great
|husetts.| Britain.| husetts.| Britain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Average highest weekly | dols. | dols. | dols. | dols.
wage paid to-- | | | |
Men | 37.00 | 13.39 | 25.41 | 11.36
Women | 5.50 | ... | 8.57 | 4.10
Young persons | 7.00 | 3.65 | 6.94 | 3.04
Children | 5.70 | ... | 4.64 | 1.05
| | | |
Average lowest weekly wage | | | |
paid to-- | | | |
Men | 7.60 | 3.21 | 7.09 | 4.72
Women | 5.00 | ... | 4.62 | 2.27
Young women | 4.50 | 1.46 | 4.26 | 1.66
Children | 3.00 | ... | 3.09 | .60
| | | |
Average weekly wages | | | |
paid to-- | | | |
Men | 12.04 | 8.07 | 11.85 | 8.26
Women | 5.12 | ... | 6.09 | 3.37
Young persons | 5.76 | 2.52 | 5.10 | 2.40
Children---- | 5.31 | ... | 3.81 | .79
---------------------------------------
General average weekly wage | | | |
paid to all _employes_ | 11.75 | 8.07 | 10.32 | 6.96
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Result: General average | |
weekly wages higher in | 45.60 | 48.28
Massachusetts by per cent | per cent. | per cent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The two first columns of the table are simply illustrative of the method
applied to a single industry, exhibiting the highest average, lowest
average, and average weekly wages, whether to men, women, young persons,
or children, in the particular business of "machine-making," together with
the general average wages paid to all the _employes_ in such industry. The
general average weekly wages in this industry are thus shown to be 45.6
per cent. higher in Massachusetts than in Great Britain.
The 3d and 4th columns of the table consolidate all the twenty-four
industries, and yield, in similar terms, as in the case of machine-making,
an average comparison applying to the whole group of industries under
examination, giving, as a grand result, that the general average weekly
wages of Massachusetts are higher by 48.28 per cent. than those of Great
Britain.
It is, however, explained that the British wage returns were made in three
different ways, viz., for a definite number of _employes_, by percentage
returns, and by general returns; both of the latter being for an
indefinite number of _employes_. Where more than one wage-basis was given,
the highest figure was used in the calculations, and, this being the case
in eighteen out of the twenty-four industries, its effects on the grand
result are considerable; for, by crediting Great Britain with the
_average_ instead of the _high_ weekly wage, the average percentage in
favor of Massachusetts rises from 48.28 per cent. to 75.94 per cent.
In order truly to indicate the higher percentage of average weekly wages
in Massachusetts, we must, therefore, agree upon a figure somewhere
between these two extremes, viz., that of 48.28 per cent., derived from
tables in which Great Britain is credited with the high wage, and that of
75.94 per cent., derived from those tables in which she is credited with
the average of the returns made upon the different bases. The mean of
these figures is 62.11 per cent., which is considered to be the result of
the investigation, and may be formulated as follows: The general average
weekly wages paid to _employes_ in twenty-four manufacturing industries
common to Massachusetts and Great Britain is 62 per cent., higher in the
former than the general average weekly wages paid in the same industries
in the latter country.
But the question of wages forms only one side of the working man's
account; on the other stands the cost of living, and no comparisons of
prosperity, in given industrial communities, are of any value which omit
to take into consideration the relative ease with which such communities
can procure the means of subsistence. Table C presents a summary of
prices, gathered in 1883, of the chief items in a working man's
expenditure, and their cost in Massachusetts and Great Britain.
_Table C_.
---------------------------------------------------------
Articles. |Percentage higher | Percentage higher
| in Mass. | in Great Britain
---------------------------------------------------------
Groceries | 16.18 | -
Provisions | - | 20.00
Fuel | 104.98 | -
Dry goods | 13.26 | -
Boots and shoes | 42.75 | -
Clothing | 45.06 | -
Rents | 89.62 | -
---------------------------------------------------------
Having agreed that wages are probably 62 per cent. higher in
Massachusetts than in Great Britain, it would be easy, if we could
ascertain what proportion of a working man's income is spent respectively
in groceries, provisions, clothing, etc., to determine what advantage an
operative derives from the higher wages of the United States. Dr. Engel,
the chief of the Prussian Bureau of Statistics, puts us in possession of
this information, and, as the result of a laborious inquiry, has
formulated a certain economic law which governs the relations between
income and expenditure. From him we learn (see Table D) that:
_Table D_.
A working man with an income of L60 per annum
spends as follows:
Per cent.
of income. Shillings.
/ meat.... 248
1. On subsistence 62 or \ groceries 496
2. " clothing 16 " 192
3. " rent 12 " 144
4. " fuel 5 " 60
5. " sundries 5 " 60
------
Total shillings 1,200
Or L60
Now, referring to Table C, it will be seen that the same man's expenditure
in America would be:
Shillings. S.
1. On subsistence / meat.... 248 - 20 p.c. = 198.4
\ groceries 496 + 16 " = 575.3
2. " clothing 192 + 45 " = 278.4
3. " rent 144 + 89 " = 272.1
4. " fuel 60 + 104 " = 122.0
5. " sundries 60 + 50 " = 90.0
--------
Total 1,536.2
Or L76 16s.
In other words, a workman earning L60 per annum in Great Britain would
receive L99, or 62 per cent. more wages in the States, but living there
would cost him L77, or L17 more than here, giving him a net advantage of
only 28 per cent., instead of 62 per cent., derived from living and
working in America.
But this result does not exhaust the question. The standard of life is
very different among working men in the States and in Great Britain, and
the almost inexhaustible statistics of the report, already so often
quoted, enable us to gauge this difference with accuracy. It has been
proved, by a recent investigation, whose details we need not follow, that
the expenditure of working men's families, of similar size, in
Massachusetts and in Great Britain, stand to each other in the ratio of 15
to 10. By introducing this new factor into our calculations, we find that
a man who spends L60 per annum in England would spend L90, instead of L77,
per annum in the States, paying American prices for subsistence, and
living up to American standards. In other words, he would be a gainer to
the extent of only L9 per annum by living and working in the United
States. Finally, if we presume that 48 or 50 per cent., rather than 62 per
cent., measures the higher wages of Massachusetts, the same man's
increased wages would be L90 instead of L99, and he would-neither lose nor
gain in money by becoming an American citizen, and adopting American
habits.
That these conclusions agree with those rough and ready practical
illustrations which, without being scientific, are generally trustworthy,
let the following story evidence.
Some years ago, a skillful moulder, in my then firm's employ, left us for
the States, where he permanently settled. After a long absence, he
returned for a few weeks' holiday, when I asked him whether he earned
higher wages and found life more agreeable in America than in England.
"Well, as to money" was his reply, "I think, taking all things into
consideration, I did about as well in the old shop as I do now; but,
socially speaking, I am somebody there, while here I am only a moulder."
Social advantage, indeed, probably measures almost all the difference
between the position of a skilled factory operative in the States and in
England.
Let me not seem, however, to undervalue that difference. Statistics, after
all, do not dominate human nature; on the contrary, human nature
determines the statistician's figures. Every artisan emigrant to America
gains opportunities of advancement of which his European fellows know
nothing. If he have brains, the way to success is open there, while it is
practically barred to anything short of genius for men of his class in
Europe. Our Australian colonies, where unskilled labor can earn 7s. 6d. a
day, and live for a trifle, are, indeed, a paradise for the mere
wage-earner, who can scarcely help becoming also a wage-saver; but America
is the country which, with wage conditions such as I have attempted to
portray, still offers the best possible opportunities of success, and even
of great careers, to clever working men, and especially to clever
mechanics. That man, however, is not worthy of a home in the great
republic, who does not appreciate the higher social levels at which native
labor desires to live, who is not anxious to make the most of the
advantages which democratic institutions offer him, who does not, in
short, ardently desire to become a "good American."
There remains the question already alluded to as inextricably bound up
with American labor problems: How does the American tariff affect wages?
The idea that these are determinable by the tariff is the corner stone of
protection in the States. The artisan has been so sedulously educated to
believe that the chief object of import duties is to protect him from
falling into a ruinous competition with what is called the "pauper labor
of Europe," that no movement on the part of workmen in the direction of
free trade is ever likely to arise in America. I am not now about to argue
the question of protection, except in so far as it relates to labor; but
it may be remarked, in passing, that internal competition, rather than the
people, is the enemy from whom the tariff will probably receive its death
blow in the future. Protection will ultimately break down by its own
weight in the States. Production already exceeds demand, the cry for a
"wider market" and for "raw materials free" is in every manufacturer's
mouth; and if America upholds her protective legislation too long, the
produce of her factories and mills will, by and by, force its way, in
spite of the tariff, into the open markets of the world, but it will be
through the gate of national suffering. Few people in this country are, I
think, aware of the extraordinary fervor with which the doctrine that
protection benefits labor is preached in the States. We are ourselves
accustomed to hear the question of free trade argued only from the
economic standpoint, but this is by no means so commonly the case in
America. I shall try, by paraphrasing certain recent addresses of an able
personal friend and enthusiastic protectionist, to illustrate the position
taken by those persons who advocate the tariff, not upon economic grounds,
but in the avowed interests of labor.
Referring to the words "Free Trade," the speaker in question begins by
asking, "What is the essential nature of that which we call trade?" And
answers himself as follows:
"The grim, ugly fact is that trade is a fight, the markets are battle
fields, the traders are gladiators, carrying on a true war around
questions of values, with no care whether the opposing party or the
community at large can afford that the trade is made. This contest is
always going on, whether a lady buys a pair of gloves, or a syndicate
corners Erie. Antagonism is so fixed an element of trade, and so often
defeats the object it blindly follows, as to make laws which seek to
mitigate the ferocity of the struggle as welcome to the far-sighted man of
business as they are to the foredoomed victims of this relentless
warfare."
On the other hand, competition is said to be a--
"Wonder worker in developing energy in the strongest individuals, and
massing wealth in masterful states; but, since competitive trading can
never be wholly beneficent, it should be strictly controlled, in the
interests of the toiling millions, who are too weak successfully to oppose
its attacks. The results of forcing on the naturally weak, by means of
competition, hard and unequal bargains which are evaded by the strong, are
appalling in their magnitude, dividing whole peoples permanently into
castes, rich and poor, injuring the former by excess, and the latter by
deprivation, making a nation strong in the trading instinct, and rich in
accumulated wealth, but weak and poor in all its other parts. This abuse
is saddest of all when, failing to be recognized as an evil, the doctrines
of free trade are wrought into the policy and social life of a people."
Protective remedies for this state of things are introduced as follows:
"Wherever the value of competition has been fully recognized, but
supplemented by wise control of its energies, the results are excellent.
This fact forms the foundation of our protective laws, whose very name
'protective' implies assailants; those hard bargains, to wit, driven on
the fighting side of trade, under the motto of 'let the fittest survive.'
When a small army is attacked by a large one, it covers itself by
earthworks. Similarly, where there are sheep, and wolves abound, the
farmer puts up fences which effectually protect his flock; and, in the
same way, tariffs are 'forts,' whence the artisan may hope successfully to
defend himself against the attacks of his powerful and unscrupulous enemy,
capital; or they may even be considered as a pistol, which a little fellow
points at a big bully who threatens him with a thrashing."
Such are the arguments which are urged with great fervor, and immense
effect, upon the American artisan, who fully and firmly believes that
protection is the only agent capable of lifting his lot above those,
dreaded levels at which the "pauper labor of Europe" is universally
believed to live.
The simple answer to all this rhetoric appears to be that, while it might
be valid as an indictment of the competitive system as a whole, it is
valueless when directed against a part of that system only. Advocates who
are not prepared to say that every bargain shall be controlled by
beneficence, and who distinctly admire the chief results of competition,
cannot logically demand that labor, alone of all salable commodities,
shall be bought and sold on altruistic principles.
In what immediately precedes, I have endeavored to indicate the character
of the pleadings which make American artisans universally supporters of
the tariff, and we must now return to the question, What, after all, is
really the effect of protection on wages in America? I answer that no
legislative schemes can add to, although they may injure, the material
resources of a state. Capital can only support the labor for which the
annual harvest of such resources pays, and all that legislation can do is
artificially to divert labor and capital from directions which they would
take under the influence of natural laws.
America is selling, at the present time, about L160,000,000 worth of food
and other raw products in Europe. These, together, represent her chief
branch of business, in which nearly fifty per cent. of her population is
engaged, and all this merchandise is sold in the free trade markets of the
world. Wages in America, therefore, cannot possibly be regulated by the
tariff, because, whatever wages can be earned by men engaged in the
production of agricultural products--the prices of which are fixed in
Liverpool--must be the rate of wages which will substantially be paid in
other branches of business. Wages, like water, seek a level; if
manufacture pays best, labor will quit agriculture; if agriculture pays
best, manufactures will decline, and agriculture progress.
A glance at the condition of industrial society in America vividly
illustrates this conclusion. Any man, with a few dollars and a strong pair
of arms, can win far greater rewards from the soil than he could possibly
obtain by the same effort in Europe. His wages are high, because the grade
of comfort to be obtained from the land by means of a little labor is
high, and the artisans' wages must follow suit, if men are to be tempted
from the field into the workshop. American politicians, however, would
have us believe that American labor owes its prosperity to taxation; in
other words, that what the immigrant seeks is not the rich prizes offered
him by a free and fertile soil, but the blessings which flow from a tariff
that adds an average 40 per cent. to the cost of everything he needs
except food.
One more illustration, and I have done. Upon the wall hangs a diagram
which shows the movements of American wages, of English wages, and of the
tariff from 1860 to 1883. I have already argued that a tariff cannot
determine wages, and the diagram affords positive proof that it has not
determined them in America, as between 1860 and the present time. On the
contrary, their movements are evidently due to the same causes as have
influenced wages here during this period, while it is certainly remarkable
that they have fallen sooner, fallen lower, and recovered less completely
in America, where industry is "protected," than in Great Britain, were it
is "unprotected."
Shortly to recapitulate all that has been advanced, I have endeavored to
show:
1st. That a great change has occurred in the social condition of labor in
the United States during the last forty years, and that, spite of all the
existing agencies of improvement, it is doubtful whether the working
classes of America are not, at the present moment, falling still further
from those high ideals of operative life which once so brilliantly
distinguished the United States from European countries.
2d. That, although wages are probably some 60 per cent. higher in the
chief manufacturing districts of America than in Great Britain, yet an
English artisan would find himself little richer there than at home, after
paying the enhanced prices for subsistence, and conforming to the higher
standard of life which prevails in the States. At the same time, his whole
social position and opportunities of advancement would be immensely
improved.
3d. I have tried to demonstrate that the tariff, to which the higher wages
of America are so confidently attributed, has really no influence whatever
upon them, and that it is not therefore an engine, such as it is glowingly
represented to the American artisan, constructed for the purpose of
raising his lot above that of the so-called "pauper labor of Europe." Any
inquiry into the character of the work really accomplished by the engine
in question would lead me into regions of controversy forbidden in this
room.
Finally, if I am asked why, in a review of American labor and wages, I
have said nothing of trade unionism on the one hand, and of co-operative
production on the other, I can only answer that to have introduced these
among so many other interesting, but subsidiary, subjects which crowd
around questions of labor and wages, would have doubled the volume of this
address, and more than halved the patience with which you have kindly
listened to it.
* * * * *
A catalogue, containing brief notices of many important scientific papers
heretofore published in the SUPPLEMENT, may be had gratis at this office.
* * * * *
THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION, $5 A YEAR.
Sent by mail, postage prepaid, to subscribers in any part of the United
States or Canada. Six dollars a year, sent, prepaid, to any foreign
country.
All the back numbers of THE SUPPLEMENT, from the commencement, January 1,
1876, can be had. Price, 10 cents each.
All the back volumes of THE SUPPLEMENT can likewise be supplied. Two
volumes are issued yearly. Price of each volume, $2.50, stitched in paper,
or $3.50, bound in stiff covers.
COMBINED RATES--One copy of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and one copy of SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT, one year, postpaid, $7.00.
A liberal discount to booksellers, news agents, and canvassers.
MUNN & CO., PUBLISHERS,
361 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, N.Y.
* * * * *
PATENTS.
In connection with the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Messrs. MUNN & Co. are
Solicitors of American and Foreign Patents, have had 40 years' experience,
and now have the largest establishment in the world. Patents are obtained
on the best terms.
A special notice is made in the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of all Inventions
patented through this Agency, with the name and residence of the Patentee.
By the immense circulation thus given, public attention is directed to the
merits of the new patent, and sales or introduction often easily effected.
Any person who has made a new discovery or invention can ascertain, free
of charge, whether a patent can probably be obtained, by writing to MUNN &
Co.
We also send free our Hand Book about the Patent Laws, Patents, Caveats,
Trade Marks, their costs, and how procured. Address
MUNN & CO., 361 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
Branch Office, cor. F and 7th Sts., Washington, D.C.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 | 9