BY A. J. OGILVY. 



205 



In the case of secondary products, manufactured goods, as say 

 for example boots, the cost will be added to the boots ; but it 

 will not be all piled upon the labourer's boots, the boots of the 

 ■overpaid will bear their share. If in consequence of a boot- 

 makers' strike an increase of £1,000 in wages had to be paid 

 for a given turn out of boots, then £1,000 would have to be 

 added to and distributed amongst that turn oat of boots ; the 

 overpaid would have to bear all the added cost that accrued to 

 their boots, leaving the underpaid to bear that part only which 

 accrued on their boots ; and the share that the overpaid will 

 have to bear on their boots is not to be measured merely by 

 their numbers, for the boots used by a rich man are generally 

 much dearer, representing a good deal more labour than the 

 boots used by a poor man. 



To sum up so far, let us express the argument in figures ; 

 not pretending for- a moment that the figures are even approxi- 

 mately correct, but simply to illustrate our meaning. 



Suppose then that in consequence of a series of concerted 

 strikes among the whole class of labourers wages generally 

 were increased by £30,000 a month, we might say that— 



10,000 would be taken off rent instead of added to price. 



10,000 more would be added to price, but to price only of 

 good's which the strikers did not consume. 



And of the remaining 10,000, i (or 200) would be paid by 

 the richer classes who consumed their share of such goods, 

 leaving only 8,000 to be borne by the strikers on their share. 



The profit and loss account to the strikers would then stand 



thus — 



Taken out of rent and added to wages ... 10,OUO 



Levied on rich purchasers of luxuries and 



added to wages 10,000 



Levied on necessaries and small comforts and 



added to wages ••• 10,000 



Total 



Deduct increased price on strikers' '.own 

 purchases ... 



30,000 



8,000 



Wet gain to the strikers 22,000 



It is said, however, that if the upper classes lose so much 

 there must be so much the less employment for labour, and so 

 the loss will come round to the labourer after all. 



There will be no less employment. 



For why will the upper classes have got so much less/ 

 Simply because the lower class has got so much more. It is 

 not a loss but a mere transference of employing power. Wnat 

 the masses want more money for is to spend it, and they can 



