TEMPERANCE AND THRIFT
I said in the previous chapter that if _all_ the workers were very
thrifty, sober, industrious, and abstemious they would be worse off in
the matter of wages than they are now.
This, at first sight, seems strange, because we know that the sober and
thrifty workman is generally better off than the workman who drinks or
wastes his money.
But why is he better off? He is better off because, being a steady man,
he can often get work when an unsteady man cannot. He is better off
because he buys things that add to his comfort, or he saves money, and
so grows more independent. And he is able to save money, and to make his
home more cosy, because, while he is more regularly employed than the
unsteady men, his wages remain the same, or, perhaps, are something
higher than theirs.
That is to say, he benefits by his own steadiness and thrift because his
steadiness makes him a more reliable, and therefore a more valuable,
workman than one who is not steady.
But, you see, he is only more valuable because other men are less
steady. If all the other workmen were as steady as he is he would be no
more valuable than they are. Not being more valuable than they are, he
would not be more certain of getting work.
That is to say, if all the workers were sober and thrifty, they would
all be of equal value to the employer.
But you may say they would still be better off than if they drank and
wasted their wages. They would have better health, and they would have
happier lives and more comfortable homes.
Yes, so long as their wages were as high as before. But their wages
would _not_ be as high as before.
You must know that as things now are, where all the work is in the gift
of private employers, and where wages and prices are ruled by
competition, and where new inventions of machinery are continually
throwing men out of work, and where farm labourers are always drifting
to the towns, there are more men in need of work than work can be found
for.
Therefore, there is always a large number of workers out of work.
Now, under competition, where two men offer themselves for one place,
you know that the place will be given to the man who will take the lower
wage.
And you know that the thrifty and the sober man can live on less than
the thriftless man.
And you know that where two or more employers are offering their goods
against each other for sale in the open market, the one who sells his
goods the cheapest will get the trade. And you know that in order to
sell their goods at a cheaper rate than other dealers, the employers
will try to _get_ their goods at the cheapest rate possible.
And you know that with most goods the chief cost is the cost of the
labour used in the making--that is to say, the wages of the workers.
Very well, you have more workers than are needed, so that there is
competition amongst those workers as to who shall be employed.
And those will be employed who are the cheapest.
And those who can live upon least can afford to work for least.
And all the workers being sober and thrifty, they can all live on less
than when many of them were wasteful and fond of drink.
Then, on the other hand, all the employers are competing for the trade,
and so are all wanting cheap labour; and so are eager to lower wages.
Therefore wages will come down, and the general thrift and steadiness of
the workers will make them poorer. Do you doubt this? What is that tale
the masters so often tell you? Do they not tell you that England
depends upon her foreign trade for her food? And do they not tell you
that foreign traders are stealing the trade from the English traders?
And do they not tell you that the foreign traders can undersell us in
the world's markets because their labour is cheaper? And do they not say
that if the British workers wish to keep the foreign trade they will
have to be as thrifty and as industrious and as sober as the foreign
workers?
Well, what does that mean? It means that if the British workers were as
thrifty and sober and industrious as the foreign workers, they could
live on less than they now need. It means that if you were all
teetotalers and all thrifty, you could work for less wages than they now
pay, and so they would be able to sell their goods at a lower price than
they can now; and thus they would keep the foreign trade.
Is not that all quite clear and plain? And is it not true that in
France, in Germany, and all other countries where the workers live more
sparely, and are more temperate than the workers are in England, the
wages are lower and the hours of work longer?
And is it not true that the Chinese and the Hindoos, who are the most
temperate and the most thrifty people in the world, are always the worst
paid?
And do you not know very well that the "Greeners"--the foreign Jews who
come to England for work and shelter--are very sober and very thrifty
and very industrious men, and that they are about the worst-paid workers
in this country?
Take now, as an example, the case of the cotton trade. The masters tell
you that they find it hard to compete against the Indian factories, and
they say if Lancashire wants to keep the trade the Lancashire workers
must accept the conditions of the Indian workers.
The Indian workers live chiefly on rice and water, and work far longer
hours than do the English workers.
And don't you see that if the Lancashire 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 competition 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 competition 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 shirt 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 shirt 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
shirts _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 shirts. 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 competition. 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.
That much conceded, I ask you, Mr. John Smith, what do you think of the
request that you shall work hard, live spare, and give up a man's right
to love, to a home, to children, in order that you may be able to "make
a living"? Such a living is not worth working for. It would be a manlier
and a happier lot to die.
Here is the idea as it has been expressed by a working man--
Up to now I had thought that the object of life was to live, and
that the object of love was to love. But the economists have changed
all that. There is neither love nor life, sentiment nor affection.
The earth is merely a vast workshop, where all is figured by debit
and credit, and where supply and demand regulates everything. You
have no right to live unless the industrial market demands hands; a
woman has no business to bring forth a child unless the capitalist
requires live stock.
I cannot really understand a _man_ selling his love and his manhood, and
talking like a coward or a slave about "imprudent marriages"; and all
for permission to drudge at an unwelcome task, and to eat and sleep for
a few lonely and dishonourable years in a loveless and childless world.
You don't think _that_ is going to save you, men, do you? You don't
think you are going to make the best of life by selling for the sake of
drudgery and bread and butter your proud man's right to work for, fight
for, and die for the woman you love?
For, having sold your love for permission to work, how long will you be
before you sell your honour? Nay, is it not true that many of you have
sold it already?
For every man who works at jerry work, or takes a part in any kind of
adulteration, scampery, or trade rascality, is selling his honour for
wages, and is just as big a scamp and a good deal more of a coward than
a burglar or a highwayman.
And the commercial travellers and the canvassers and the agents who get
their living by telling lies,--as some of them do,--do you call those
_men_?
And the gentlemen of the Press who write against their convictions for a
salary, and for the sake of a suburban villa, a silk hat, and some cheap
claret, devote their energies and talents to the perpetuation of
falsehood and wrong--do you call _those_ men?
If we cannot keep our foreign trade without giving up our love and our
manhood and our honour, it is time the foreign trade went to the devil
and took the British employers with it.
If the state of things in England to-day makes it impossible for men and
women to love and marry, then the state of things in England to-day will
not do.
Well, do you still think that single life, a crust of bread, and rags,
will alone enable you to hold your own and to keep your foreign trade?
And do you still think that poverty is a mark of unworthiness, and
wealth the sure proof of merit? If so, just read these few lines from an
article by a Tory Minister, Sir John Gorst--
The "won't-works" are very few in number, but the section of the
population who cannot earn enough wages all the year round to live
decently is very large.
Professional criminals are not generally poor, for when out of gaol
they live very comfortably as a rule. There are wastrels, of course,
who have sunk so low as to have a positive aversion to work, and it
is people of this kind who are most noisy in parading their poverty.
The industrious poor, on the other hand, shrink from exposing their
wretchedness to the world, and strive as far as possible to keep it
out of sight.
Now, contrast those sensible and kindly words with the following
quotation from a mercantile journal:--
The talk about every man having a right to work is fallacious, for
he can only have the right of every free man to do work if he can
get it.
Yes! But he has other "rights." He has the right to combine to defeat
attempts to rob him of work or to lower his wages; he has the right to
vote for parliamentary and municipal candidates who will alter the laws
and the conditions of society which enable a few greedy and heartless
men to disorganise the industries of the nation, to keep the Briton off
the land which is his birthright, to exploit the brain and the sinew of
the people, and to condemn millions of innocent and helpless women and
children to poverty, suffering, ignorance, and too often to disgrace or
early death.
A man, John Smith, has the right to _be a man_, and, if he is a Briton,
has a right to be a free man. It is to persuade every man in Britain to
exercise this right, and to do his duty to the children and the women of
his class and family, that I am publishing this book.
"The right to do work if he can get it," John, and to starve if he
cannot get it.
How long will you allow these insolent market-men to insult you? How
long will you allow a mob of money-lending, bargain-driving,
dividend-snatching parasites to live on you, to scorn you, and to treat
you as "live stock"? How long? How long?
I shall have to write a book for the women, John.