་

t. 5.-FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

are accustomed to tell each other that industry is a state of transition, forgetting that the platitude has m applicable for a hundred and fifty years or more. bility, whether of currency or of other economic conons, may be an ideal towards which we strive, but it ne to which we seldom attain. Since the war it has med more remote than ever, and our pre-war state pears to us in retrospect, what it certainly was not reality, one of tranquil progress. Our economic fabric endured such violent shocks that we almost doubt ability to survive; while the task of strengthening weakened structure, of rebuilding, enlarging, deoping, upon the existing foundations is rendered no ier by the attacks of those who honestly wish not for onstruction but for destruction, in order that an irely new social order may arise in place of the old. The wages system is, as it necessarily must be, of the main problems. What should be the share the mass of the people in the product of industry, by what means should that share be determined? and this central point controversy rages. Work or intenance, the relation of wages to the cost of living, changing standard of comfort, all these and other s are perforce familiar to the most careless of citizens. view of the changed position of women, it is necessary n for the unsympathetic to give careful consideration the conditions under which women work, while the dy development of the child welfare movement, the kening of the public conscience with regard to social racial health, appeal with peculiar force to the nan voter.

The community has tended more and more to make vision for all children, irrespective of the position of ir parents. We educate them all, up to a point; we after their health; we help to feed them. The plete dependence of the child upon the ability, health, character of its father, upon the domestic skill of mother, is considerably diminished. Nevertheless, dren still remain the dependents of their parents, in our society their economic position mainly deupon their father. If he is unlucky, or incapable,

payme

or lazy, or self-indulgent, if he either refuses to ear as much as he is capable of earning, or chooses to spen an unduly large proportion of what he does earn outsid his own home, neither wife nor children have any redre unless the wife is driven to take extreme measures. Te average wage is supposed to be based, very rough upon the needs of the average family, that is, from t point of view of the supply of labour, the bargaini power of the wage earner is directed towards the pe vision of a sum sufficient to maintain the average standa It of comfort. The inevitable result is that the avera wage makes insufficient provision for large families, wh the man who has few dependents, or none, is overpa de Yet it is difficult to imagine how under the prese system either of these results can be avoided. It i clearly impracticable to demand higher wages for t fathers of large families. The inevitable result wote w be a preference for bachelors, or for childless perso Men are paid according to their respective trades, a not according to the number of their dependents. S less does any one, except the dependents, take into a sideration the proportion of their incomes that w earners propose to devote to the maintenance of the families, or the share that they reserve for their priv ends.

pa

de

are

Tome

Sent mer

bee the

The net result of this rough-and-ready, if lo established, plan, is that on the one hand children arr in the community to be well or ill reared according the ability of their parents; while on the other hand community through the schools, the clinics, the welf and feeding centres, spends a great deal of energy trying to make up for the incompetence, or the i ness, or the ill-health, or the sheer misfortune of th parents. Two of the three political parties have pla upon their programmes the making of provision widows with dependent children, so that the public n be called upon to take charge of the family which has 1 its ordinary means of support. It is, of course, true t the public, through the Poor Law, has long been lis to this charge, but the new plans are upon a far m extended scale than the old. On the one hand the ov burdened taxpayer and ratepayer is crying aloud the diminution of his burdens, on the other the presst

and

3

-public opinion tends more and more to demand from community adequate help for those of its members o endure misfortune. This demand is above all made behalf of the children, whose sufferings cannot be erved; and however mysterious may be the mind of woman voter we can be fairly certain that the needs the children will certainly and inevitably appeal to sympathies.

Meanwhile, another difficulty is making itself more more felt. If the average wage is based upon the ds of the average family, what principle should ermine the payment of women? It is obvious that ny women have dependents, and that many men have e; but it is also true that man, upon the whole, pects to provide for the upbringing of a family, and at the expectation affects his bargaining power, while man, upon the whole, expects mainly to provide for self. The economic burden of the maintenance of race may be partly shifted to the whole body of payers and ratepayers; but its main incidence is still on the male parent. In consequence, the general ly of opinion is probably in favour of paying women lower rate than men. Women, however, are by no ans prepared to accept this position. With increasing istence they demand equal pay for work of equal e. They are prepared to make full allowance for ditions which specially affect them, such as the arriage mortality rate,' which in plain English means t other things being equal a man is worth more than oman, because his value increases with experience, therefore goes on increasing, while a large protion of women only earn until they marry, so that time spent in their training is to some extent ted. Women feel, however, that these special diffities have been very much over-emphasised, that in ay cases their work is as valuable as that of their ow men, and that their payment should consequently at the same rate. The teaching profession provides obvious illustration.

The demand for equal pay, moreover, receives support n many who are not specially concerned for the omic well-being of women, but who are gravely rehensive as to the dangers which may arise from

cheap and efficient competition. When women took th place of men during the war they received, in mar cases, warm if unexpected support from the me organisation in their demands for men's wages, not much because the men specially wanted the women earn large sums, but because they were vividly conscie of future possibilities. If, for instance, women tr conductors had been as cheap as they were efficient popular, they might have proved dangerous competit to men when men were again seeking employment. that once more the existing wages system provides solution for an admittedly difficult and increasin pressing problem. Popular feeling is instinctively aga paying women at the same rate as men, because men expected to maintain families and women are not; if women are paid at a lower rate they become a mer to the standard of living and compete 'unfairly' men wage earners. In either case, therefore, there sense of injustice and bitterness which is socially fortunate.

the r

r it is

dem

cater

ide by

two

effici Sonal

arming

Fod;

T

on

earl

red

th

tha

erien

Public opinion has hardly yet aroused itself to equal 'unfairness' of paying bachelors, or men with children, at the same rate as fathers of families. these two difficulties, that of equating the earning women and men, and that of providing adequately children without overburdening industry, are two of main bases upon which the advocates of another system, that of family allowances, rest their case. point out the logical weakness of the present plan. overpay all those who have less than the supp average number of dependents. Therefore, a numb men either have more than they require to keep t selves, and are consequently likely to misspend-econ cally speaking-the balance, or else they work less they are able to do, and economically should, bec they can maintain their standard of comfort by &0 days' work in each week. Both results, in a commu which urgently needs the greatest possible producti and the most economical use of what is produced deplorable. Moreover, industry, already overburdene heavy taxation, is paying a higher rate of wages th economically necessary to a proportion of the worl to all in fact who have less than the average numb

8

and t

rin

10

pendents, if, indeed, we are justified in assuming that existing wages provide adequate maintenance for average family. However this may be, under the sent wage system, some families receive too much others not enough. Miss Rathbone, one of the most ve advocates of family endowment, quotes figures ch suggest that if the ordinary wage is based upon a ily of five persons, then less than twenty per cent. xisting men workers over twenty years of age are tled to the full amount. Over fifty per cent. are er bachelors, widowers, or married men without endent children, and the rest have either one or two endent children apiece.

The proposal is that the standard wage should be ed, not upon the needs of a supposed average family, upon those of a worker, and his, or indeed her, sekeeper, for it is clear that the maintenance of an ient worker demands the services of some one who cook and cater and clean and mend. Attempts, as are made by so many women workers, to perform it should be two full-time jobs almost inevitably lead liminished efficiency. In addition to this standard e an additional payment would be made for every d under earning age.

o far so good; but difficulties arise when the source these additional payments has to be taken into unt. The earlier enthusiasts were, as probably some are, prepared to demand that they should be paid he State, on the analogy of the separation allowances. as argued that considerable economies would result, the experience of the war had shown that the hers could be trusted to inake good use of children's wances, and that a healthier race would result, with equent savings upon all the services that deal with prevention of ill health. But our recent experiences significant. Social services mean immediate exliture and only the hope of a possible saving in the re. He would be a bold Chancellor of the Exchequer would face the taxpayers with a demand for the Ired and fifty millions which are estimated as the of family allowances, offering in return the saving 3 effected in health services. Our present financial ion makes such attempts impracticable. Another 1. 242.-No. 480.

F