ALL DEPENDENT UPON THE PAYROLL
The importance of the American payroll upon which all rely is
emphasized, and the necessity of safeguarding this payroll is
shown together with a lesson in domestic economy.
While the government has kept as few as possible in its employ we are
dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the payroll. Not only the
merchant and the farmer, but the professional man and banker, have
suffered when, for any cause, labor has stood in the bread line. This
is well illustrated by the fact that the American people consumed 5.94
bushels of wheat per capita during 1892, only 3.44 bushels in 1894 and
over 7 bushels in 1906. He who had eaten at the back door as a tramp
fed himself like a prince when every wheel was turning and everyone
working.
These figures are also illuminating: We imported for consumption $12.50
per capita in 1892, only $10.81 in 1896 and $16.49 in 1907. This may
cause surprise when you remember that the minimum per capita
importation of 1896 was when the average tariff duty collected thereon
was only 20.67 percent, while in 1907 the average rate was 23.28
percent. Notwithstanding the higher rate, we actually imported for
consumption sixty percent more merchandise per capita than under the
lower tariff rate. No more indubitable proof can be found that when
labor is employed, and the payroll large, all classes and conditions
prosper.
ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY
Suppose I build a factory costing, say, one hundred thousand dollars,
and enter an untried field of manufacture. I pay out two hundred
thousand dollars in wages and make a net profit of fifty thousand
dollars. These figures are unimportant except as an illustration. I
have made fifty per cent on my investment and the world says it is too
much. It is too much, notwithstanding the fact that I take all the
risk, make the experiment and demonstrate the possibilities of a new
industry. I also pay a wage at which my employees are glad to work. Not
one of them risks a day’s toil. But, because my profits are large, if
for no other reason, I am certain to have competition next year.
What shall I do with my fifty thousand dollars net profit? I can eat no
more than I have eaten, and I cannot wear more than one suit of clothes
at a time.
I challenge anyone to tell me how I can keep my profit away from labor
except by converting it into cash and locking it in a safe deposit box.
Suppose I give my daughter a big wedding and spend much money for cut
flowers. Cut flowers are nature’s sunshine plus management and labor.
So management and labor get that. But management is compelled to spend
its share as I spend mine, and thus it all goes directly or indirectly
to labor. I build for my daughter a home and fill it with furniture,
china, glass and silver. Both the house and its furnishings consist of
lumber in the forest, ore in the ground, clay in the pit, white sand in
the bank, and other raw materials, plus management, labor and
transportation—and transportation is labor. Thus labor gets all except
the portion which goes to management and capital, and management and
capital are compelled to turn their respective shares into labor.
Here the theoretical socialist and the scientist—I mean the man who
recognizes that nothing is scientific except what stands the test of
experience—part company. The socialist admits that cut flowers are
sunshine plus labor and as sunshine receives no portion he demands that
labor shall have it all. He forgets or refuses to recognize that
without directing energy there would be no greenhouse, water system,
heating plant or other essential of production. Labor and sunshine
never produced anything better than a wild flower. Of course labor may
and frequently does furnish the management. All the necessary equipment
for the production of the various articles I have mentioned is the
result of a directing genius which we call management.
Let no one accuse me of trying to deceive or cajole labor. I not only
admit, but I assert, that there is far more satisfaction, though not
necessarily greater happiness, in drawing dividends than wages. I have
had both experiences. I am an expert, for I have either touched or seen
life at every angle. I have worked to the limit, day after day, from
five in the morning until nine at night for hire, with not to exceed
one hour for the three meals, and have gone to bed happy. For fifteen
years I was at my law office, as a rule, from seven in the morning
until ten at night, and for more than thirty years of my mature life I
never took a day for recreation. My wife and I are now living quite
comfortably from dividends, but we look back upon those strenuous
years, in which this best woman in the world joyfully and even joyously
bore her share, as the happiest period of our lives. Still I repeat,
dividends are better than pay envelopes or checks from clients. And I
am glad they are. The All-Wise must have designed they should be, for
otherwise life would be one dreary humdrum of drudgery, with little
incentive to great effort and greater sacrifice, the universal _quid
pro quo_ in the great one-price store of republics.
In this connection permit me to urge every man whose wakeful hours are
spent in toil, to make it exceedingly clear to his children that there
is more satisfaction in drawing dividends than wages. Let the youth
also know that nearly every one who now draws dividends began by
drawing wages. I can recall very few men whose names are or have been
known beyond the confines of local communities, whether bankers,
lawyers, manufacturers, merchants or railroad presidents, whose hands
have not been calloused with humble toil. This is conspicuously so of
Rockefeller, Carnegie, Wanamaker and Schwab, and was equally true of E.
H. Harriman, C. P. Huntington, J. J. Hill, George M. Pullman, the
McCormicks and practically all others who in days past rendered
conspicuous service in making America.