WASTE.
[To THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR:] Sin,—As one who is chiefly dependent on your paper for his educative literature and much enjoys its "rare and refreshing fruit," I am venturing to criticise the footnote to "Prae- eeptor's." letter on Super-Luxury in your issue of April 6th. You remark that "far more momentous economically is the waste caused by clinging to old systems of transport and distribution," Sm. Now it so happens that my trade neighbours and myself have recently been urged to adopt certain labour- saving appliances. My friends have done it, with the result that two of their regular hands are now thrown out of work, and keep coming round to my place for casual jobs. As the firm has been paying good dividends (10 per cent.) for some years past, 1 say the change was unnecessary and inhuman. In my own case—a different trade—I am being advised toinstal a machine which would increase my average profit of ls. per ton to ls. hi., but it means paying off three men. As my present profit provides me with a decent living, my conscience forbids me to adopt the economic change because it is heart- less. Is not this the only right and proper view to take P- [" Merchant's" attitude if persisted in would stereotype existing conditions and make it impossible for the poor ever to better their condition. It would kill all improvements in production. But to say this is not to say that we should be heartless or inconsiderate in applying labour-saving appli- ances. The time for introducing such appliances should be chosen with a view to helping the dispossessed workers to get employment elsewhere, or when vacancies arise, and every effort should be made to find the discharged men other employment. If " Merchant's " theory had prevailed in the past we should still be using flint hammers and hatchets.-.- ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
