UNEMPLOYMENT : ITS LOGICAL SOLUTION
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The article by Mr. N. M. P. Reilly in last week's Spectator contains important fallacies. He asserts that the cure for industrial stagnation is to raise wages. Everyone who thinks logically must see that it is because our costs of produc- tion are too high we cannot in many industries compete with producers abroad. Our high costs of production are due chiefly to high wages, short hours and inadequate production for a given wage.
Mr. Reilly proposes a basic minimum wage, the same for both men and women and applicable to all industries alike. It is not quite clear whether the basic wage is to be the same in every kind of industry. The foolishness and mischievous- ness of this doctrine has been shoWn by the example of Aus- tralia, where, I believe, the basic wage is £4 10s. per week. It must be remembered that no one is bound-to employ others, and if you fix a high basic wage only those will be employed whose work is worth £4 10s. Another fallacy of Mr. Reilly and Labour Socialists is that it is the money wage that matters, If everyone is to be paid a very high basic wage all goods produced at those wages will be correspondingly dear and the advantage of the high money wage is lost on the high cost of living-
Not only so, but competition with countries where wages are Myth less and taxation for doles is non-existent, becomes Impossible.—I am, Sir, &c.,
" CAPITALIST."
Previous page
