There is produced, by direction, foresight and toil, in any given year, hardly more of any stated necessity of life than the current needs of the people. It is probably true also that it is the thrift of the few; the foresight of the so-called capitalist; the enterprise of the manufacturer, builder or railroad man, the wise ventures of the merchant and trader; that keep up the present standard of wages and living—low though it may be in comparison with our wishes or ideals.
A large number of those engaged in business enterprises fail to succeed at all. The profit of the more successful, though often imposing, averages a very small percentage counting both good and bad years. It is easily turned into a loss, by dull times, trade changes, or careless management.
To quote Ray Stannard Baker (not writing in behalf of the mill owner) in his article on the Lawrence strike: “If one were to divide all the surplus of profit in the textile mills today—figure it out for yourself! It would increase their wages and improve their living conditions almost inappreciably.”[[3]]
[3]. The Revolutioners Strike. American Magazine, May, 1912.
So it is evident that if employment is to continue and a larger share is to be given to those who perform the manual labor, while at the same time the conditions under which they work are to be improved, some means must be devised whereby the present margin of profit can be increased. Otherwise those who plan and carry on these industrial undertakings will be discouraged.
Of course many believe that capital, or business enterprise, has had too much attention already. Now that the capitalist “class” (mostly made up of men formerly poor) has shown the way to the accumulation of wealth, they think it is simply necessary for “society” or “the workers” to do the same thing themselves, and pocket the results. But how this is to be done has not yet been shown.
How can the employer treat his working force more generously, without the fear of insolvency staring him in the face, when the books are balanced for the year?
One of the most hopeful solutions was promised in the new “efficiency” discoveries. These seemed to indicate that a larger output by the worker could bring about a greater reward for himself, together with a corresponding increased profit for the employer.
But, so far, the attitude of “labor” seems to be opposed to anything like an increase either of efficiency or production. Reduction of hours and minimum of output, seem to be favored. The false idea is that more “work” is thereby created, although the amount of the absolute necessaries of life which their labor produces is thereby curtailed. Their idea is that they do not get their share of the “wealth” they already produce; that a constantly increasing mass of it is kept out of their reach. They wish to seize part of it, not by earning, but by taking it from the present recipients.
So we are brought back to the original issue. How can it be brought to pass that the director of enterprise on capitalist, whose brains are the creating power of the world’s wealth, shall be filled with an altruistic spirit that he may spare and increase all benefits and comforts with his manual helpers? And how, on the other hand, can we inspire the worker, under his direction, with loyal energy to do all in his power to support and carry on the wealth-producing enterprise, each emulating each with noble example and worthy sacrifice?