¥F.—ECONOMICS. 101 
therefore, to try to put her on her feet, not merely as a moral duty, 
but on the lowest grounds of self-interest. 
I have dwelt at some length on the point that a civilised wage such 
as we all desire may be unattainable, because it is of critical importance 
to-day, and because, obvious though it may appear, it is widely ignored. 
We are continually being told that the standard wage should be the 
1914 wage, plus a percentage equivalent to the increase in the cost 
of living since that date. And yet we are obviously poorer than we 
were in 1914, and it is equally obvious that our foreign trade is slipping 
from our grasp, owing to the competition of Germany and America. 
From a practical point of view what is necessary is not to work out 
a standard wage which we should like to pay if we could, but to deter- 
“mine what wages we can afford to pay in each industry without losing 
our foreign markets. This can only be settled by a frank discussion 
between employers and employed, and it is essential that employers 
should disclose all the facts. This would reveal that in many industries 
prices have fallen faster than costs, and that work is being taken at a 
loss. This is, I believe, right as a temporary measure, because it is 
not reasonable that all the sacrifices should be borne by the workers. 
But it can be only temporary, otherwise fresh capital will not be forth- 
coming, and our industries will perish for the want of it. 
It is clear, therefore, that in accepting the principle of a civilised 
wage we must have due regard to the progress, maintenance, and 
well-being of the industry under consideration. 
But it may be that, whilst the great majority of trades and industries 
‘in the country can afford to pay what may fairly be regarded as a 
civilised wage, some few industries may be unable to do so. One way 
of meeting the difficulty is by the imposition of a special tariff on 
imported goods, on the lines of the Safeguarding of British Industries 
Bill. I must not be led too far astray into the byways of controversy, 
but I confess that I think this is a thoroughly bad solution. I do not 
object to the protection of infant industries, but if a full-grown industry 
‘eannot walk without crutches we are better without it, even if its 
absence may embarrass us in a world war once every hundred years. 
As a matter of fact, however, sweated wages are usually the result of 
inefficiency—absence of labour-saving devices and bad organisation. 
So that often the real remedy for a trade in which wages are depressed 
is an expert inquiry into its methods of working, and State-aided 
scientific research, which has an important field ahead of it. 
If it is accepted that the basic wage of a worker must be a living 
wage and that this term should be interpreted as liberally as possible 
consistently with the progress, maintenance, and well-being of the 
‘industries of the country, a further question arises. What do we mean 
by a worker? Do we mean a single man, a childless married man, or 
“a man with a family? Obviously, I think, the cost of living for a 
married man with a family is greater than for a single man, although 
I haye heard the opposite argued, very unconvincingly. Is a living 
wage to cover the expenses of a married man with an average family of, 
say, three children? Or should it merely cover the man, some other 
means being found to provide for the wife and family? The case for a 
