RELIEF FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.
• [To THE EDITOR• OF THE " SPECTATOR."' , SIR,—You were good enough. to .publish. in your last issue a letter-of mine Under -the above heading is which I pointed out that the chief cause of unemployment was the unreasonableness of labour, that there was a superabundance of work for all who are willing to work for a fair remuneration. It is obvious that the building trade, the trades connected with it, and domestic service could give ample employment to far more than a million workers. Lately I have spent some time in those parts of London, such as Poplar, East Ham, and Deptford, where unemployment is supposed to be particularly prevalent. To my amazement I found not only no evidence of distress, but found the publie-houses overcrowded and the numerous picture theatres overflowing with people. As far as ocular evidence goes, there cannot be much real distress. What distress there is can only be partial. The masses which are filling the public-houses and picture theatres seem to have plenty of money to spend on luxuries, and it seems only fair that the people who can afford amusements, which, after all, are not cheap, should help those who are unemployed and in want. I suspect that a, great deal of the agitation regarding the unemployed emanates from Communists and Socialists who aim at the ruin of the hated capitalists. At any rate, it seems obvious to me that the shutting up of public-houses and picture theatres would enable the people to spend more money on food, clothes, and fuel. Very likely the closing of public-houses and picture theatres would be one of the best means of relieving the unemployed. The policy of doles and of " making work " will merely further impoverish the great purchasing public which alone can provide work. We seem to be drifting towards the policy of panem et cireenses.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
