Part 26 (1/2)

And don't you see that if the Lancas.h.i.+re workers would live upon rice and water, the masters would soon have their wages down to rice and water point?

And then the Indians would have to live on less, or work still longer hours, and so the game would go on.

And who would reap the benefit? The English masters and the Indian masters (who are often one and the same) would still take a large share, but the chief benefit of the fall in price would go to the buyers--or users, or ”consumers”--of the goods.

That is to say, that the workers of India and of England would be starved and sweated, so that the natives of other countries could have cheap clothing.

If you doubt what I say, look at the employers' speeches, read the newspapers which are in the employers' pay, add two and two together, and you will find it all out for yourselves.

To return to the question of temperance and thrift. You see, I hope, that if _all_ the people were sober and thrifty they would be really worse off than they now are. This is because the workers must have work, must ask the employers to give them work, and must ask employers who, being in compet.i.tion with each other, are always trying to get the work done at the lowest price.

And the lowest price is always the price which the bulk of the workers are content to live upon.

In all foreign nations where the standard of living is lower than in England, you will find that the wages are lower also.

Have we not often heard our manufacturers declare that if the British workers would emulate the thrift and sobriety of the foreigner they might successfully compete against foreign compet.i.tion in the foreign market? What does that mean, but that thrift would enable our people to live on less, and so to accept less wages?

Why are wages of women in the s.h.i.+rt trade low?

It is because capitalism always keeps the wages down to the lowest standard of subsistence which the people will accept.

So long as our English women will consent to work long hours, and live on tea and bread, the ”law of supply and demand” will maintain the present condition of sweating in the s.h.i.+rt trade.

If all our women became firmly convinced that they could not exist without chops and bottled stout, the wages _must_ go up to a price to pay for those things.

_Because there would be no women offering to live on tea and bread_; and s.h.i.+rts _must_ be had.

But what is the result of the abstinence of these poor sisters of ours?

Low wages for themselves, and, for others?----

A young merchant wants a dozen s.h.i.+rts. He pays 10s. each for them. He meets a friend who only gave 8s. for his. He goes to the 8s. shop and saves 2s. This is clear profit, and he spends it in cigars, or champagne, or in some other luxury; _and the poor seamstress lives on toast and tea._

But although I say that sobriety and thrift, if adopted by _all_ the workers, would result in lower wages, you are not to suppose that I advise you all to be drunkards and spendthrifts.

No. The proper thing is to do away with compet.i.tion. At present the employers, in the scramble to undersell each other, actually fine you for your virtue and self-denial by lowering your wages, just as the landlords fine a tenant for improving his land or enlarging his house or extending his business--fine him by raising his rent.

And now we may, I think, come to the question of imprudent marriages.

The idea seems to be that a man should not marry until he is ”in a position to keep a wife.” And it is a very common thing for employers, and other well-to-do persons, to tell working men that they ”have no right to bring children into the world until they are able to provide for them.”

Now let us clear the ground a little before we begin to deal with this question on its economic side--that is, as it affects wages.

It is bad for men and women to marry too young. It is bad for two reasons. Firstly, because the body is not mature; and secondly, because the mind is not settled. That is to say, an over-early marriage has a bad effect on the health; and since young people must, in the nature of things, change very much as they grow older, an over-early marriage is often unhappy.

I think a woman would be wise not to marry before she is about four-and-twenty; and I think it is better that the husband should be from five to ten years older than the wife.

Then it is very bad for a woman to have many children; and not only is it bad for her health, but it destroys nearly all the pleasure of her life, so that she is an enfeebled and weary drudge through her best years, and is old before her time.