Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

statistics which show that protection does not raise wages, are within the reach of every man. Every workingman can satisfy himself that any slight advance he may receive in his nominal wages, is more than eaten up by the increased cost of living.

If there is one State in the Union that should be benefited by protection, that State is Massachusetts. It is full of protection and always has been. If protection raises wages anywhere it ought to in Massachusetts; but does it? Hon. Carroll D. Wright, labor commissioner of Massachusetts, a Republican, a State official and a protectionist, gives the condition of the laboring men in 1881 as compared with 1860. He gives the wages in 1860 and in 1881, and also gives the cost of living in 1860 and 1881. This is the conclusion he comes to in his own words:

"Covering the whole period of twenty-one years, there was an average increase in wages of 31.2 per cent., and in prices 41.3 per cent. That is, between 1860 and 1881, the workingman has suffered a reduction of ten per cent. in the purchasing power of his wages, and this between a dead level year and one of general prosperity."

Workingmen can see from the above how protection raises wages. It does appear to raise wages. The workingman gets more money for his work, but it is exactly as free-traders say, it costs him so much more to live that the additional money received is more than eaten up. Wages go up a little, but cost of living goes up more.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

*This Table was inserted by the compiler and taken from J. Schoenhof's work entitled The Destructive Influence of the Tariff. Published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, N. Y.

CHAPTER XL.

COMPARING AMERICAN WAGES WITH ENGLISH WAGES, AND SHOWING HOW SMALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PAY, AND HOW SMALL A TARIFF WOULD BE NEEDED TO PROTECT AMERICAN LABOR, IF RAW MATERIALS WERE FREE.*

HE superiority of our means of production being

but little remains to

strate that our industries need no protection to enable them to compete successfully with Europe, provided they share the advantages that Europe, i. e., England, Germany, etc., possesses; namely, free raw materials. Our exports in cotton goods are sufficient evidence of this. The same may be said of articles where the skill of the workman, the inventive genius of the American, comes into action. In fact, wherever the value of the work bears a very high relation to the value of the raw material, there we can freely compete with foreign nations. It is so in the case of machinery, tools, implements of all sorts made of iron and steel. Though they are made of materials taxed more heavily than the finished goods, yet the superiority of American workmanship is able to overcome these burdens. Wherever labor largely preponderates in the combined value of labor and materials, there we excel. Of course, in heavy goods, requiring little skill and labor, whose value

J. Schoenhof in The Destructive Influence of the Tariff upon Manufacture and Commerce. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.

lies chiefly in the material, competition is altogether out of the question. This alone ought to prove conclusively that though we pay in most fields better wages than even the English and they pay the highest wages in Europe,

[ocr errors]

we still make goods that can fully compete with theirs.

We may consider, therefore, a protective tariff, such as we enjoy, as an absolute superfluity that does not benefit the workingman (on the contrary, does him harm in lessening the value of his wages), cripples the manufacturer in narrowing his field of operation, and most completely annihilates our foreign commerce. And manufacturers cannot prosper without the aid of commerce.

Some people, however, after all that has been said of the relative cheapness of our work, may still be in doubt as far as our competitive capacity in regard to England in concerned; -the country which in Europe pays the highest wages and makes the cheapest goods. To dispel such doubts I will compare the rates paid here with those paid in Europe in the principal industries:

1. Cotton Goods- Mr. Carroll D. Wright states the average weekly wages in Lancashire and Manchester:

[blocks in formation]

Considering this to be a fair average of differences paid to the various employees of the cotton mills in the respective countries, then we pay our operatives just twenty per cent. more than the English pay. And the English pay about fifty per cent. more than the Germans pay their operatives,

and yet we are exporters of cotton goods to both Germany * and England. The figures of Mr. Wright find contradiction from various quarters. Mr. J. Chase, member of Congress from Rhode Island, himself a cotton manufacturer, places the difference as high as sixty-two per cent.

According to the last census, however, the average wages for all cotton mill-hands are $246 for the year, or $4.73 a week, which would imply earnings below those given by Mr. Wright. It is doubted whether our cotton-goods operatives can earn more than the English. Granting, however, for argument's sake, that they earn twenty-five per cent. more, then this surplus of earnings is more than balanced by longer working hours-sixty hours constituting a week in Massachusetts (other States, having no legal limitation, work longer hours yet), against fifty-four to fifty-six hours in England, and by higher speed and greater perfection of our productive methods. But let us waive all the advantages derived from these points and take twenty per cent. as representing the proportion of wages to the product of the cotton mills, then a tariff of five per cent. on cotton piecegoods would cover the whole difference in the earnings of our operatives. The old tariff taxed cotton goods thirtyfive per cent. where ad valorem rates were imposed. new tariff raised this to forty per cent.‡ Specific rates were reduced somewhat, but not sufficiently to compensate for the great decline in the price of cotton that has taken place since 1865. Unbleached, from five cents to four cents

per square yard!

The

Bleached, from five and one-half to five

*This we are able to do, notwithstanding Germany's tariff of forty marks or ten dollars on the hundred-weight of cotton goods. One hundred pounds German weight equals one hundred and ten pounds American.

+ Where the annual average of earnings in any specified industry is given, it must be borne in mind, that this includes high and low wages, salaries of clerks, etc., which reduces the individual earnings of the largest proportion of workers to a sum materially below the average.

This includes cotton velvets, embroideries, laces, etc., which are all raised from thirty-five to forty per cent.

« НазадПродовжити »