[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR,"] Sra,—In your very interesting
article on this subject in the Spectator of December 29th you altogether omit (can it be intentionally P) any reference to another contributory cause of inefficiency of labour, which is so convincingly brought for- ward in Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell's book on the " Temperance Problem." I refer of course to the undoubted fact that large numbers of our working classes are underfed. Your article compares the efficiency of the British and American workman in the ratio of 11 to 21, and I will just quote one or two extracts taken from the above-mentioned work in this connection :- "What the employer will get out of his workman will depend very much on what he first gets into him."--(P. A. Walker, economist.)
" One of the most intelligent manufacturers I ever met told me a few years ago he would be only too glad to pay higher wages to his working people, provided they would spend the excess legiti- mately."—(Dr. Gould, Commissioner of the U.S. Labour Depart- ment.) " They don't eat and don't work,' said a shoe manufacturer of Vienna, when we compared notes on the productiveness of Austrian and German labour, and of American labour."— • (Schoenhof.) " It has been found expedient for the employers of labour in certain brickyards of Massachusetts to serve their workmen with a supply of the best food in order to promote the largest production of bricks per man at the lowest cost to the em- ployer."—(Atkinson, "Food Question in America and Europe.")
" What inferences do we draw from our statistics? Unmis- takably this, that higher daily wages in America do not mean a correspondingly enhanced labour cost to the manufacturer. But why so ? The real explanation I believe to be, that greater physical force as the result of better nourishment, in combination with superior intelligence and skill, make the working man in the United States more efficient."—(Dr. Gould, U.S. Labour Depart- ment.)
Now, Sir, surely there is evidence sufficient to entitle this theory (that insufficient food is at least a contributory cause of inefficient labour in England) to a hearing, and it would be very interesting if you would supplement your article with another on the relations of food, drink, and labour.—I am, Sir, &c., A. W. BARKER. Cockington.
P.S.—Let us not forget Lord Rosebery's question, " Are we rearing an Imperial race? "
[Our correspondent has apparently not taken the trouble to read our articles on Labour questions. During the last few years we have often insisted that high wages by no means necessarily increase the cost of production, but often lower it by increasing the labourer's powers. We have illustrated our views by the clear, if disagreeable, use of the maxim that it is bad economy not to feed your horses well.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
