Then there are those who are incapable of productive work because of physical defects, or through the feebleness of old age. It is the duty of every citizen to provide, as far as possible, during his productive years, for the "rainy day" of misfortune or advancing age. For those who cannot do so, the community must provide.
Very young children are users of wealth produced by others. It is expected, however, that children will in later years make return to the community for what they have received during their period of dependence.
INHERITED WEALTH
Some people inherit wealth, or otherwise come into possession of it without effort on their part. The wealth so received, however, has been earned by someone, or has come from the community in some way. If the person who so receives it uses it in a way that is highly useful to the community, he may in a sense earn it even after he receives it; but if he uses it solely for his own enjoyment, without effort to make it highly useful to the community, he does not in any sense earn it, and places himself in the class of those who are wholly dependent upon the community.
UNFAIR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE
On the other hand, there are people who do not get for their work a living that fairly compensates them for the service they render by it to the community. If our community life were perfectly adjusted in all its parts; if all the people clearly recognized their common interests and their interdependence; if they had the spirit of cooperation and were wise enough to devise smoothly working machinery of cooperation;—then the returns that a worker received for his work would be closely proportionate to the service rendered by his work. That is, he would GET what he EARNED, so far as wages or profits were concerned. But this is one of the particulars in which our community life is still imperfect. Where so many different kinds of workers are engaged in producing shoes, for example, it is extremely difficult to determine how much each should be paid for his share of the work. What WAGES should be given to the different classes of workers who care for cattle, make the leather, manufacture the machines with which the shoes are made, operate the machines, mine the coal and iron for the production of the machines, and so on? What PROFITS shall be allowed to the men who raise the cattle, to the merchants who sell the shoes and the machines, and to the transportation companies that carry them from the factories to the dealers? What INTEREST shall be received by the men who furnish the CAPITAL necessary to run the factories and the farms? These questions relating to the DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH that men produce have proved very difficult to answer satisfactorily.
A very useful and interesting, but rather difficult, science has grown up to explain the PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND USE OF WEALTH. It is called the SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS. Of all the divisions of this science, that relating to the distribution of wealth is the most perplexing. It is the inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the sense of injustice produced by these inequalities, and sometimes a failure to understand what a fair distribution is, that have caused all the labor disputes referred to in Chapter VII (p. 71), and the discontent sometimes felt by farmers and other producers in regard to the prices of their products.
Have you ever heard any one say, "The world owes me a living"? Is this a true statement? If so, in what sense do you think it is true?
Which do you think is the truer statement: "I have a right to a living," or "I have a right to earn a living"? Discuss the difference.
A thief has been known to say, "I was brought into the world without my own consent; therefore the world owes me a living, and I owe the world nothing." Is this good argument? Did the people upon whom he depends for a living have any more to say about their being brought into the world than he had?