366 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



are never formed on such, a question as that, for the plain reason 

 that it suits some temperaments to hurry and other temperaments 

 not to hurry, and a change can not be effected by regulation. The 

 main object is more compensation for the same or less service, 

 and it is expected to come by causing a scarcity of products ; 

 that is, with less to divide, the share of each, will be greater — a 

 contradiction in terms, regarding the matter as a permanent con- 

 dition. 



Let us illustrate in another way. "We ask, Has man been pro- 

 vided with a surplus of force, the exercise of which, in efforts to 

 get a good living, operates to prevent him from getting a good 

 living ? If this be the case, a reduction of force must prove bene- 

 ficial. Are laboring-men prepared to admit this ? Would it pro- 

 mote wealth to have every able-bodied man lose one foot, so as to 

 reduce the aggregate activity of the community one half ? Would 

 a community of one-armed men get a more comfortable living than 

 a community of two-armed men ? Do we find slow, sluggish, time- 

 wasting, inactive, and unindustrious peoples getting ahead and 

 living a more desirable life than the vigorous, pushing, and con- 

 stantly employed peoples ? Yet a reduction of force a fourth, a 

 third, and even a half, it is asserted by some, will enable the users 

 of force greatly to improve their circumstances. 



If we produce less we shall have more, according to the theory 

 which demands less production as a means of getting richer. Ac- 

 cording to this theory, the little busy bee which improves each 

 shining hour, and gathers honey aU the day, makes a grand mis- 

 take. It should adopt the eight-hour system — gather less honey, 

 and have more leisure. 



The question of hours of labor as affecting the health and the 

 length of life and happiness of laborers is not under discussion 

 here, but simply their bearings upon the financial status of the 

 men who do the work of the world. The workers are aiming at 

 an improvement of their finances and at the abolition of poverty, 

 and it is important to know whether the means proposed are ade- 

 quate to the end, and even whether they tend to improvement of 

 pecuniary conditions. Under some circumstances and for short 

 periods, in given cases, a shortening of hours of labor may not 

 cause a decrease in compensation. For instance, a man with 

 plenty of money, having made up his mind to build a fine house, 

 may go on and build it, though he pay ten-hour wages for eight 

 hours' work. A number of men may do the same thing, and the 

 mechanics who are fortunate enough to be in their employ will 

 not be losers in consequence. But these cases are the exception 

 and not the rule. When it comes to the great body of men who 

 would build, the higher cost operates as a prohibition to building, 

 as thousands of men would be unable to build and pay thirty per 



