Chapter IX Profits, Bad Trade and Unemployment
If we look at the amounts of profit assessed under the income tax during the last fifteen years we are struck with the steady growth of the figures:—
GROSS PROFITS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX
| 1893-4 | £673,700,000 |
| 1894-5 | 657,100,000 |
| 1895-6 | 677,800,000 |
| 1896-7 | 704,700,000 |
| 1897-8 | 734,500,000 |
| 1898-9 | 762,700,000 |
| 1899-1900 | 791,700,000 |
| 1900-1 | 833,300,000 |
| 1901-2 | 867,000,000 |
| 1902-3 | 879,600,000 |
| 1903-4 | 902,800,000 |
| 1904-5 | 912,100,000 |
| 1905-6 | 925,200,000 |
| 1906-7 | 943,700,000 |
| 1907-8 | 980,100,000 |
| 1908-9 | 1,010,000,000 |
These figures have been widely quoted, and with reason, as indicative of rapidly growing prosperity. We see that the gross assessment to income tax has actually grown by over £336,000,000 since 1894. We could have no better proof of the growth of the national product which is divided up amongst us.
There is but one set-back in the table. It occurred in the year 1894, when the total gross assessment fell by £16,600,000, and the assessment under Schedule D (Trades and Professions) fell by £16,000,000. This fall, of course, was only an apparent one caused by an alteration in the limit of exemption. Since that date there has been remarkable growth. Since “Riches and Poverty” first appeared (1905) the growth has proceeded very rapidly indeed.
It is of interest to inquire into the movement of wages and employment during these years of remarkable prosperity. Did wages rise and was employment constant?
In “Riches and Poverty,” edition 1905, pp. 99 et seq., I wrote:
“Let us take some typical trades, and examine the rates of wages paid in these years of rapidly increasing profits.
“The figures about to be quoted are those collected by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade.
“London carpenters in 1894 were paid 9½d. per hour. In 1897 the rate rose to 10d. and in 1903 to 10½d. In Birmingham in 1894 the rate was 9d. and in 1903 9½d. In Belfast the rise between 1894 and 1903 was from 7¾d. to 8½d.
“Bricklayers’ labourers in London were paid 6½d. per hour in 1894 and 7d. in 1903. In Manchester the rate remained constant at 6d. per hour. In Birmingham there was a rise from 6d. to 6½d. Masons’ labourers in Glasgow have been paid since 1894 a constant rate of 5½d.
“Turning to coal-hewers we get some considerable changes, which are best shown in tabular form:—
NOMINAL DAILY EARNINGS OF COAL HEWERS
1894-1903
| Northumberland | Durham. | Sth. Staffs. and East Worcestershire. | West Scotland. | |
| s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | s. d. | |
| 1894 | 5 9 | 5 5 | 4 8 | 6 0 |
| 1897 | 5 0 | 4 11 | 4 4 | 4 6 |
| 1900 | 6 0 | 5 10 | 4 8 | 6 3 |
| 1901 | 7 9 | 7 5 | 5 0 | 8 0 |
| 1903 | 6 0 | 5 10 | 5 0 | 5 9 |
“In the ten years there has been a considerable variation, but the high rates of 1901 were brief in duration. Coal-hewers’ wages have now gone back almost to the level of 1894.
“Engine fitters in London earned 38s. in 1894 and 39s. in 1903. In Birmingham and Manchester the rates rose from 34s. in 1894 to 36s. in 1903. In Newcastle there was a greater rise in the same period, from 31s. 6d. to 36s.
“Ironfounders in London obtained 38s. in 1894, 40s. to 42s. in 1900 and 40s. in 1903. In Manchester the rates were much the same. In Birmingham 36s. was paid in 1894 and 38s. in 1903.
“Compositors in London were paid 38s. in 1894 and 39s. in 1903. In Manchester the rate remained constant at 35s. In Glasgow the rate remained constant at 34s.
“Agricultural labourers in the Eastern Counties obtained 11s. 1d. per week in 1894 and a gradual increase to 13s. 1d. in 1903. In the North near coal there was a rise from 17s. 5d. to 18s. 4d. In the Midlands 13s. 5d. was paid in 1894 and 14s. 6d. in 1903.
“Textile wages are best expressed by an index number. Taking the rate of 1903 as 100 the rate paid in 1894 was nearly 95 per cent. of that of 1903. This increase refers to cotton spinners and weavers and linen and jute operatives taken together.
“A mere recital of the foregoing facts is sufficient to show that the rise in wages in 1894-1903 was at a much lower rate than the growth of profits in the same period.”
Revising this work for 1910, I regret to say that the changes in the above-quoted rates have been so few that it is not worth while to rewrite what I set down five years ago. Wage rates have been almost stationary in the interim, and the changes that have been made in the above figures are too insignificant to be worth recording.
The matter is best dealt with by setting out the Board of Trade wages index numbers. In the important table on page 112 I have contrasted the representative wage index numbers prepared by the Board of Trade with index numbers representing the gross assessments to income tax. In a similar table in “Riches and Poverty,” 1905 edition, I did not take into consideration the growth of the number of income tax payers. In the present calculation I have assumed a growth of income tax payers of 10,000 a year throughout the period, which must be very near the truth.
It will be seen that, representing the profits of 1900 by 100 and calculating the profits of other years as percentages of 100, the total profits index number rises from 86.8 in 1893 to 112.5 in 1908.
The wages are treated in the same way, the rates of the years before and after 1900 being expressed as percentages of the rates of that year. It will be found that the index number expressing the unweighted average of the building, coal-mining, engineering and textile trades, and agriculture rose from 90.1 in 1893 to 101.0 in 1908.
It is a striking contrast:—
PROFITS AND WAGES CONTRASTED
(From Table on page 112).
| Profits. Per cent. of those of 1900. | Wages. Per cent. of those of 1900. | |
| 1893 | 86.8 | 90.1 |
| 1900 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| 1908 | 112.5 | 101.0 |
It should be remembered that the income tax assessments are largely made upon the average of the profits of the three years preceding the year of assessment (see Chapter 21), and that the income tax has been better collected in recent years, but even when allowance is made for this the figures remain remarkable.
The table does much less than justice to the growth of profits, for this reason. As will be seen by the table on page 37, the growth of income tax payers has been chiefly in the region of small salaries, which (see p. 36) average about £200 a year. The addition of 10,000 income payers at £200 a year adds but £2,000,000 to a year’s aggregate assessment. But the addition of 10,000 £200 income tax payers in a year, little as it adds to the aggregate, waters down the average income tax income (col. C, p. 112), and so lowers the Profits Index Number. If one could separate the small salary earners from the table, profits would show a much more decided growth, considerable as is the rise in the index number as modified by the small fry.
On the other hand, the Wage Index Number deals with certain trades—mining, textile, engineering, building, agriculture—which have certainly gained more in wage rates in the period than a great mass of labour outside the groups named. Therefore, while the Profits Index Number minimizes the growth of profits, the Wage Index Number exaggerates the growth of wages as a whole. On the latter point, see Chapter 2.
TAXED PROFITS AND WAGES CONTRASTED
The Wage Index Numbers are those of the Board of Trade (Cd. 4954). The Profit Index Numbers are based upon the Inland Revenue Assessments. The Financial Year 1893-4 is taken to correspond with the Calendar Year 1893.
Note.—The wages and profits of 1900 are represented by 100. The wages and profits of the other years are expressed as percentages of those of 1900.
| YEAR | PROFITS. | WAGES. | ||||||
| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | ||||
| Gross Assessments to Income Tax. | Probable Number of Income Tax Payers. | Average Gross Income of Tax Payers. | Index No. of Incomes. 1900=100 | Wages Index No. 1900=100. | ||||
| £ | Number. | £ | Per Cent. | Per Cent. | ||||
| 1893 | 674,000,000 | 950,000 | 709 | 86.8 | 90.1 | |||
| 1894 | 657,000,000 | 960,000 | 684 | 83.8 | 89.5 | |||
| 1895 | 678,000,000 | 970,000 | 698 | 85.5 | 89.1 | |||
| 1896 | 705,000,000 | 980,000 | 719 | 88.1 | 89.9 | |||
| 1897 | 734,000,000 | 990,000 | 741 | 90.8 | 90.8 | |||
| 1898 | 763,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 763 | 93.5 | 93.2 | |||
| 1899 | 792,000,000 | 1,010,000 | 784 | 96.0 | 95.4 | |||
| 1900 | 833,000,000 | 1,020,000 | 816 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
| 1901 | 867,000,000 | 1,030,000 | 841 | 103.0 | 99.0 | |||
| 1902 | 880,000,000 | 1,040,000 | 846 | 103.6 | 97.8 | |||
| 1903 | 903,000,000 | 1,050,000 | 860 | 105.3 | 97.2 | |||
| 1904 | 912,000,000 | 1,060,000 | 860 | 105.3 | 96.7 | |||
| 1905 | 925,000,000 | 1,070,000 | 864 | 105.8 | 97.0 | |||
| 1906 | 944,000,000 | 1,080,000 | 874 | 107.1 | 98.3 | |||
| 1907 | 980,000,000 | 1,090,000 | 899 | 110.1 | 101.7 | |||
| 1908 | 1,010,000,000 | 1,100,000 | 918 | 112.5 | 101.0 | |||
| Increase 1893-1908 | 49.8 Per Cent | 15.7 Per Cent | 29.5 Per Cent | 29.5 Per Cent | 12.0 Per Cent | |||
| Increase 1900-1908 | 21.2 Per Cent | 7.8 Per Cent | 12.5 Per Cent | 12.5 Per Cent | 1.0 Per Cent | |||
Thus in recent years the proportion of the national income taken by labour made no gain upon the proportion taken by capital. On the contrary, labour took a diminished share of the increased product.
Since the Boer War labour has barely retained the increase which it obtained between 1894 and 1900.
The seriousness of the position is increased by the great rise in the cost of living, as the following figures testify:
WAGES AND COST OF LIVING
| Board of Trade Wages Index No. | Board of Trade Wages Index Number Retail Price of Food in London | |
| 1895 | 89.1 | 93.0 |
| 1900 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| 1908 | 101.0 | 109.0 |
| Increase per cent. | 13.3 | 17.2 |
Thus, real wages have actually fallen since 1895.
Again, as has been already remarked, the Board of Trade Wages Index Number deals with trades which on the whole have gained more than wages generally. Railway wages have been stationary for years, even while the cost of living has been going up. On the German and Swiss national lines the men have been granted higher wages in compensation for increased costs; here our railway companies abuse their monopolistic position to the uttermost in regard to wages as in regard to the public welfare.
In addition to reduced rates of wages in slump years, the working classes are made to bear the brunt of depression through (1) “short time” or partial unemployment, and (2) dismissal.
Unemployment.—Table showing, for the end of each month in 1900-1910, the number of members out-of-work in the Trade Unions which pay “Unemployment Benefit.” These figures do not include members receiving strike or sick pay
| Date. | Membership. | Number out of Work. | Per Cent. |
| 1900 | |||
| January | 521,833 | 14,252 | 2.7 |
| February | 524,872 | 15,114 | 2.9 |
| March | 524,199 | 11,821 | 2.3 |
| April | 525,865 | 13,075 | 2.5 |
| May | 531,608 | 12,645 | 2.4 |
| June | 533,119 | 13,992 | 2.6 |
| July | 533,499 | 14,566 | 2.7 |
| August | 534,331 | 15,971 | 3.0 |
| September | 536,242 | 19,520 | 3.6 |
| October | 535,668 | 17,750 | 3.3 |
| November | 539,175 | 17,715 | 3.2 |
| December | 540,102 | 21,496 | 4.0 |
| 1901 | |||
| January | 545,539 | 21,682 | 4.9 |
| February | 543,487 | 21,159 | 3.6 |
| March | 544,688 | 19,618 | 3.8 |
| April | 547,197 | 21,018 | 3.6 |
| May | 544,460 | 19,487 | 3.4 |
| June | 541,651 | 18,605 | 3.4 |
| July | 539,422 | 18,164 | 3.9 |
| August | 543,971 | 21,025 | 3.7 |
| September | 542,917 | 20,180 | 3.7 |
| October | 544,827 | 19,995 | 3.8 |
| November | 545,832 | 20,614 | 3.6 |
| December | 554,018 | 25,703 | 4.6 |
| 1902 | |||
| January | 553,218 | 24,470 | 4.4 |
| February | 561,708 | 24,072 | 4.3 |
| March | 551,270 | 20,241 | 3.7 |
| April | 550,958 | 21,349 | 3.9 |
| May | 549,023 | 21,926 | 4.0 |
| June | 554,893 | 22,832 | 4.2 |
| July | 550,169 | 21,859 | 4.0 |
| August | 551,565 | 24,549 | 5.5 |
| September | 553,870 | 27,522 | 5.0 |
| October | 548,442 | 27,270 | 5.0 |
| November | 549,197 | 26,454 | 4.8 |
| December | 552,415 | 30,302 | 5.5 |
| 1903 | |||
| January | 547,671 | 27,685 | 5.1 |
| February | 549,843 | 26,471 | 4.8 |
| March | 559,129 | 24,096 | 4.3 |
| April | 554,901 | 22,665 | 4.1 |
| May | 554,524 | 22,102 | 4.0 |
| June | 556,695 | 24,804 | 4.5 |
| July | 555,743 | 27,394 | 4.9 |
| August | 561,946 | 30,751 | 5.5 |
| September | 558,508 | 32,179 | 5.8 |
| October | 555,105 | 32,358 | 5.8 |
| November | 562,954 | 33,614 | 6.0 |
| December | 559,897 | 37,501 | 6.7 |
| 1904 | |||
| January | 561,226 | 36,767 | 6.6 |
| February | 563,824 | 34,388 | 6.1 |
| March | 567,232 | 33,950 | 6.0 |
| April | 561,611 | 33,706 | 6.0 |
| May | 571,384 | 36,002 | 6.3 |
| June | 573,373 | 34,066 | 5.9 |
| July | 568,272 | 34,494 | 6.1 |
| August | 575,061 | 37,006 | 6.4 |
| September | 575,575 | 39,005 | 6.8 |
| October | 576,642 | 39,396 | 6.8 |
| November | 577,268 | 40,244 | 7.0 |
| December | 573,726 | 43,435 | 7.6 |
Unemployment—continued
| Date. | Membership. | Number out of Work. | Per Cent. |
| 1905 | |||
| January | 578,910 | 39,315 | 6.8 |
| February | 578,708 | 35,778 | 6.2 |
| March | 578,684 | 32,558 | 5.6 |
| April | 575,968 | 32,348 | 5.6 |
| May | 575,512 | 29,487 | 5.1 |
| June | 576,346 | 29,995 | 5.2 |
| July | 576,472 | 29,845 | 5.2 |
| August | 578,444 | 31,046 | 5.4 |
| September | 578,542 | 30,696 | 5.3 |
| October | 584,288 | 29,560 | 5.0 |
| November | 586,040 | 27,769 | 4.7 |
| December | 581,630 | 28,734 | 4.9 |
| 1906 | |||
| January | 588,121 | 27,614 | 4.7 |
| February | 586,956 | 26,064 | 4.4 |
| March | 585,376 | 22,465 | 3.8 |
| April | 582,201 | 21,037 | 3.6 |
| May | 590,919 | 21,080 | 3.6 |
| June | 593,830 | 21,785 | 3.7 |
| July | 595,637 | 21,464 | 3.6 |
| August | 596,010 | 22,528 | 3.8 |
| September | 598,611 | 22,826 | 3.8 |
| October | 600,122 | 26,313 | 4.4 |
| November | 604,370 | 27,446 | 4.5 |
| December | 597,198 | 29,212 | 4.9 |
| 1907 | |||
| January | 617,911 | 25,990 | 4.2 |
| February | 618,574 | 23,932 | 3.9 |
| March | 618,230 | 22,058 | 3.6 |
| April | 619,591 | 20,310 | 3.3 |
| May | 624,993 | 21,081 | 3.4 |
| June | 622,584 | 22,189 | 3.6 |
| July | 631,158 | 23,291 | 3.7 |
| August | 632,068 | 25,458 | 4.0 |
| September | 631,241 | 28,914 | 4.6 |
| October | 638,788 | 30,079 | 4.7 |
| November | 639,678 | 32,010 | 5.0 |
| December | 644,298 | 39,343 | 6.1 |
| 1908 | |||
| January | 649,789 | 40,580 | 6.2 |
| February | 639,073 | 40,900 | 6.4 |
| March | 639,716 | 43,853 | 6.9 |
| April | 638,237 | 48,035 | 7.5 |
| May | 627,613 | 49,515 | 7.9 |
| June | 653,327 | 53,766 | 8.2 |
| July | 646,511 | 53,163 | 8.2 |
| August | 648,585 | 57,912 | 8.9 |
| September | 593,444 | 55,793 | 9.4 |
| October | 591,053 | 56,200 | 9.5 |
| November | 644,770 | 58,349 | 9.1 |
| December | 679,060 | 61,619 | 9.1 |
| 1909 | |||
| January | 688,588 | 59,786 | 8.7 |
| February | 696,688 | 58,670 | 8.4 |
| March | 700,654 | 57,450 | 8.2 |
| April | 700,867 | 57,250 | 8.2 |
| May | 699,779 | 55,473 | 7.9 |
| June | 698,284 | 55,331 | 7.9 |
| July | 693,848 | 54,877 | 7.9 |
| August | 697,268 | 53,918 | 7.7 |
| September | 695,720 | 51,749 | 7.4 |
| October | 694,930 | 49,664 | 7.1 |
| November | 696,415 | 45,569 | 6.5 |
| December | 692,153 | 45,963 | 6.6 |
| 1910 | |||
| January | 694,456 | 47,259 | 6.8 |
| February | 701,252 | 40,121 | 5.7 |
| March | 701,766 | 36,543 | 5.2 |
| April | 699,932 | 30,475 | 4.4 |
| May | 703,439 | 29,787 | 4.2 |
| June | 702,522 | 25,866 | 3.7 |
| July | 698,888 | 26,664 | 3.8 |
As to the amount of short time worked between 1900 and 1910, we have no adequate information, but as to unemployment the evidences have forced themselves upon public attention in every part of the country.
How ruthlessly the workman is made to bear the chief burden of bad trade and how, even in the best years, there is always a surplus of unemployed labour, can be clearly shown.
There are about 2,000,000 men and women Trade Unionists in the United Kingdom, belonging to some 1,300 Trade Unions, and forming but about one-seventh of the manual workers of the United Kingdom. Some of these Unions pay “unemployed benefits,” and are therefore enabled to record accurately how many of their members are out-of-work. The membership of these particular Unions is about 650,000. The Board of Trade collects from them, monthly, details of the members out-of-work and these details are published in the official “Labour Gazette.” From that publication I have compiled the table on pages 116-117, which shows faithfully, so far as about half a million of our workmen are concerned, how capital deals with labour. It covers the years since 1900, and continues the record printed on pp. 106-107 of “Riches and Poverty,” edition 1905.
The period examined covers a complete trade cycle, with its fat years and lean years. I think the reader cannot fail to be struck with the extraordinary variations in the state of employment shown in the table. Even in the best year of the period, 1900, and in March, the best month of that year, 11,821 members were receiving out-of-work pay out of a total of 524,199, and before a month had passed 1,200 more men had been discharged. By January, 1901, the number of unemployed exceeded 21,000, or 4.0 per cent. By the end of 1901 the employers had rid themselves of 26,000 men out of 554,000. Throughout 1902 the number receiving out-of-work pay was round about 25,000 at the end of each month, the figure rising to 30,000 in December. By the end of 1903 another 7,000 were discharged, and in December 1904 the total rose to over 43,000 out of 574,000, or 7.6 per cent. In 1905 there was improvement, continuing in 1906-7. At the end of 1907, however, 39,000 out of 664,000 were out of work, and a year later 62,000 out of 679,000, or 9 per cent., were unemployed. 1909 saw recovery, which has happily continued until now (August 1910). At the end of July 1910 the unemployment rate had fallen to 3.8 per cent.
These facts relate, not to casual labourers, but to the flower of our skilled workmen—to a class of men who are least likely to suffer (1) because they are the most needed instruments of capital, and (2) because they are organized and best able to resist injustice. If we were able to set out the facts relating to all manual labourers we should probably get a picture even more distressing. It is at any rate unlikely that, amongst manual labourers as a whole, employment is better than in the chief Trade Unions.
In December 1904, the Hackney Town Council conducted a census of the unemployed of Hackney. It was carried out in a very sensible way. At a cost of about £150 every house in the borough was canvassed between December 12th, 1904, and January 31st, 1905, and particulars obtained from every person over 16 years of age found to be unemployed. The results were:—
| Population (1901) | Houses. | Unemployed. | ||
| North | Hackney | 45,110 | 9,152 | 465 |
| Central | ″ | 69,368 | 9,837 | 1,090 |
| South | ″ | 104,794 | 14,751 | 2,963 |
| Totals | 219,272 | 33,740 | 4,518 |
South Hackney, which contains the poor Homerton Ward, of course gave the worst results. The unemployed in South Hackney actually numbered 3 per cent. of its whole population, men, women, and children! Taking the borough as a whole, including well-to-do Stamford Hill, the unemployed rate came out at nearly 7 per cent. of the “employable” population of all classes. 530 cases of “pawning and selling home” were discovered. Thus, for all classes of workers in Hackney, the unemployment rate was almost precisely the same as the rate in the Trade Unions paying unemployment benefit. It is also worthy of note that, out of a total number of 4,315 males unemployed, as many as 1,477 were “labourers,” and 1,167 of these “general labourers.” These facts, impressive as they are, amount to an understatement of the case, however. Many of the unemployed, from feelings of delicacy, failed to record their condition for fear of public attention being directed to them personally. Mr Councillor Fairchild of Hackney told me that he knew of forty cases of unemployment not returned in the census. This goes to show that we are justified in taking the unemployed Trade Union rate as really representative of the whole body of labour. While, on the one hand, it excludes postmen, railway servants, policemen, and others who have quite regular work, it does not include the great mass of “labourers” and other casual workers whose state of employment must always be worse than that of the men belonging to the benefit-paying Trade Unions.
It is well to point out, for the facts are little known, the enormous sums expended by the chief Trade Unions in out-of-work pay. For recent years the figures have been:—
EXPENDITURE ON UNEMPLOYED BENEFIT
BY CERTAIN TRADE UNIONS HAVING A
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF ABOUT 650,000
| Year. | Expenditure. |
| 1898 | £234,000 |
| 1899 | 185,000 |
| 1900 | 261,000 |
| 1901 | 325,000 |
| 1902 | 429,000 |
| 1903 | 516,000 |
| 1904 | 655,000 |
| 1905 | 523,000 |
| 1906 | 424,000 |
| 1907 | 466,000 |
Thus, even in the best recent years, 1899 and 1900, these Unions had to pay out £185,000 and £261,000 respectively to sustain members out-of-work. Modern industry works with a constant margin of unemployed labour, a margin which ever tends to depress wages and to place the employed at a disadvantage in bargaining for the sale of their services.
The sums above named are part, of course, of the alleged working class “capital” referred to on page 56, and often advanced as proof of the riches of the poor. In plain fact they are abstracted from poor wages in order to keep the home together when those poor wages fail altogether in seasons of unemployment. To term them “capital,” or to flaunt them as “wealth,” shows a curious perversity of ideas.
While we do not know how many workers are unemployed at any given time, it is probable that, as the whole body numbers about 15,000,000, and 60,000 are sometimes unemployed out of a group of 650,000 of these, the total may reach 500,000 or 600,000 or more in bad years.
Yet, when we obtain particulars of the profits of capital in “bad years of trade,” we see little diminution in the handsome sums confessed to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and we understand how profits are sustained at the expense of the suffering and partial degradation of a great body of British citizens larger in number than the entire landowning and capitalist classes. I shall be surprised if it does not occur to some of those who read these lines that in view of the extraordinary profits shown in the totals on page 112 the wholesale dismissal of workmen at the first symptom of slackening trade is a disgrace to our civilization.
As I have remarked earlier in these pages, unemployment is by no means confined to the manual labour classes. All the humbler units of commercial life are subject to treatment which is little better than that accorded the “workman.” As I write there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of clerks, writers, warehousemen, shop assistants, travellers, canvassers, agents, and others out of work and undergoing terrible sufferings in the endeavour to keep afloat. Cases are frequent in which advertisements offering berths of small account are hungrily applied for by hundreds of applicants. It is a sad reflection that for the vast majority of our people there is no such thing as security of tenure of employment. The profits assessed to income tax, the income, that is, of about one-ninth of our population, continue to rise by leaps and bounds, but the state of employment remains very much as it was. After a careful examination of the employment records of forty years the Board of Trade gave their verdict in 1904 (Cd. 2337, p. 84), that “the average level of employment during the past four years has been almost exactly the same as the average of the preceding forty years.”
But, as our population to-day is very much greater than in 1860, the same “average level of employment” means that there are far more unemployed workmen in England to-day than was the case forty years ago. The proportion of out-of-works is neither larger nor smaller, but the magnitude of the problem is greater because there are more of us.
No attempt is yet made by our inadequate Census to obtain particulars of the number of unemployed. The Census Bill of 1910 led to a wrangle as to whether a religious census should be taken, but there was not even a wrangle as to whether the golden opportunity should be seized to ascertain the number of unemployed. So the Census of 1911 will come and go. Before the Census of 1921 is taken many proposals will be made for dealing with unemployment, but no one will know the size of the problem to be dealt with.
There is, of course, no remedy for unemployment under present economic conditions. All that can be done by the State, consistently with the private ownership of land and industrial capital, is to remedy the distress arising from unemployment, and as I write (1910) the Government are contemplating a scheme for unemployment insurance, based on contributions by men and masters, with aid from taxation. Such a scheme should be strongly supported, but there should be clarity of ideas as to what is effected by insurance. Unemployment insurance no more cures unemployment than life insurance cures death. All that is done by it is to relieve the distress caused by the unemployment. It is a great and worthy object, but the unemployed workman drawing his out-of-work pay, is still unemployed.
The Labour Party has propounded a “Right-to-Work” Bill, but this again, on examination, suggests work or maintenance, its promoters seeing clearly that economic work cannot be made to order by a State which is as poor in property as the workmen themselves. The Right-to-Work Bill is thus no more a remedy for unemployment than an insurance scheme is such a remedy.
Nor can the State, by pursuing its few public works chiefly in bad seasons, level unemployment as between good years and bad, or as between good seasons and bad. The troughs of the waves of depression are too great to be filled by such means, and they deceive themselves who think that they can rule those waves by the manipulation of Government contracts.
The Labour Exchange is a useful machine for organizing labour to meet the vicissitudes of individualistic industry. It has been described as equivalent to the organization of industry, but that is a misnomer. The organization of industry can only begin with the organization of the means of production. If we organize production we necessarily organize labour. If we enrol unemployed workmen, and move them about as pawns to suit the uneconomic conditions of unorganized capital units (“Come and tell us if you want a man;” “Come and tell us if you want a job”) we may save the workman some trouble and loss of self-respect in finding new jobs, and render more tolerable his periods of idleness, but most surely we neither organize industry nor increase the volume of employment.