Part 11

Successful consumers’ co-operation may be said to have originated in Great Britain when twenty-eight Rochdale workingmen founded their famous society of Equitable Pioneers. The success and growth of this remarkable experiment, starting with a capital of £28, to a great system of 8,000 members with a capital of £200,000 in 1874, is a most romantic story. It was largely imitated and retail co-operative stores sprang up all over England. In 1864 the English Co-operative Wholesale Society was started, for the purpose of the joint purchase of supplies for the retail co-operative stores on better terms than these could secure singly from ordinary wholesalers. It effected large economies and was successful from the beginning; by 1901 it had a capital of £2,500,000 and acted as purchaser for over 1,000 retail societies. From buying, the society soon passed to making its own goods and now manufactures directly a long list of commodities. In 1868 the Scottish Wholesale Society was inaugurated upon practically the same plan. 115 Consumers’ co-operation has met with considerable success in Europe also. In the United States, however, experiments of this kind have in general had only a brief existence. It is impossible to say how many such societies exist today as no adequate statistics on the subject exist. Trade union stores in New England, the grange stores of the Patrons of Husbandry and later similar ones of the Sovereigns of Industry, and a few sporadic movements since in different parts of the country, show what has been attempted. The reasons for the lack of success in this country are not hard to find. Co-operation requires a willingness to take considerable trouble for small economies, which American workingmen, with their generally high wages, have not yet been willing to take. It also requires a considerable degree of homogeneity in thought and interests on the part of a people, which is naturally less present in the United States with its large admixture of foreign population than in England or the countries of Europe.

The methods of the Rochdale Society will serve as an illustration of the way in which the savings effected by co-operation are distributed among the members. Any one might become a member upon payment of one shilling and was then entitled to trade at the store. The prices charged were those current in the town, but purity of goods was assured; cash payments were an essential feature. At the end of the year the profits were divided among the members in proportion to the amount of their purchases. On the other hand, it may be noted that no attempt was made to, introduce profit-sharing with the employes, who are paid ordinary but good wages only. Other forms of consumers’ co-operation are those which undertake to supply insurance, or credit, like the co-operative insurance companies, banks, and building and loan associations. The latter especially have had considerable success in the United States and have helped many a laborer or man of small 116 means to the ownership of a home.

Producers’ co-operation differs from that just described in that it is a union on the part of laborers to do away with the employer and to secure for themselves the profits. The object of the first is to lower prices for the co-operators as consumers; the object of the second is rather to secure higher prices for themselves as producers by eliminating the profits of the industrial manager. They hope to perform his function by their collective effort, and to manage as well as labor; indeed, by diminishing friction and strikes they even hope to increase the profits. Examples of successful co-operation of this sort are not numerous, as it has great difficulties to contend with. Most of the experiments have failed, though recently it would seem that the movement is making substantial though slow progress, especially in France and England. Most of those in the latter country, however, seem to be of simple industries, as agriculture and dairy-farming. The most notable example of successful productive co-operation in the United States has been furnished by the coopers of Minneapolis, who organized a shop of their own in 1868 and have steadily increased their business since that time. Other instances often cited are the wood-workers in St. Louis and boot and shoe companies in Massachusetts. More recently there has been a considerable extension of co-operative creameries, cheese factories and similar businesses of a simple kind.

The advantages of co-operation are summed up as follows by President Walker. From the laborer’s point of view: “First, to secure for the laboring class that large amount of wealth, which … goes annually in profits to the employer. Second, to secure for the laborer the opportunity to produce independently of the will of an employer…. In addition to these, the political economist beholds in cooperation three sources of advantage. First, co-operation would, 117 by the very terms of the case, do away with strikes…. Second, the workman would be incited to greater industry and to greater carefulness in dealing with materials and with machinery. Third, in no small degree frugality would be encouraged.” To these may be added other advantages, mostly realizable, however, in consumers’ co-operation. Saving in store-room, clerk hire, advertising, book-keeping, etc., is effected, while above all, the practice of cash payments saves all loss from bad debts. The initial success of the Rochdale pioneers was in large part due to the economy in this line, as a system of long credits burdened the retail trade of England at the time they began. In this country the large department stores have introduced this system and have thus been able to give their customers lower prices, and by so much have lessened the motive for consumers’ co-operation. The educative effects of successful co-operation upon the participators in developing habits of thrift, careful management and a knowledge of business principles, is one of the chief advantages of the system. The ultimate ideal of enthusiastic co-operators does not, however, stop short of a mere saving in price. The goal is stated as follows by the Right Relationship League of America, which has several co-operative stores in the Northwest: Consumers’ co-operation is merely the first step which “will lead next to co-operative production, next to public ownership of natural resources and finally to complete industrial and economic equality, social and political right relationship--the Kingdom of God on Earth.”

The defects of co-operation have already been suggested in the account of their failure. In the first place, the importance and need of intelligent and efficient management are usually underrated by workingmen. They are unwilling to pay high salaries and as a consequence lose the best men and secure inefficient service. Co-operation has therefore succeeded best in retail trade where the processes are comparatively simple, or in those branches of production 118 where industry counts for most and management for least. But even if it were possible to secure an efficient and progressive manager for a co-operative shop, it is found very difficult for a man chosen by the workmen to enforce discipline among them. A second disadvantage is the difficulty of securing capital. Where, as in many branches of large-scale manufacturing today, the average investment of capital amounts to more than $1,000 per employe, the impossibility of obtaining this by the contributions of the workers is obvious. Nor are capitalists usually willing to lend to such organizations, as the risks are too great. To meet this difficulty Ferdinand Lassalle, a German socialist, proposed that the state should advance the necessary capital to associations of workmen. But the experience so far with productive co-operation would seem to suggest that the social benefits would not equal the waste of public capital. There is danger also that if successful the co-operative associations would tend to become monopolies; they are profit-seeking societies and would probably not differ materially in their methods from ordinary joint stock enterprises.

It seems impossible, therefore, to expect from co-operation a final solution of the labor problem, such as John Stuart Mill, for instance, hoped for. Where successful, it has succeeded in distributing profits among a larger number of persons than would otherwise have received them. Its educative and moral effects, moreover, in the appeals which it makes to higher motives and to character, are of the highest value. But as an industrial system of enterprise it cannot supplant the present system as long as the manager of industry is needed. Today he performs a useful social service and profits are his pay therefor. If he is to be eliminated, society must first be raised to a higher plane of efficiency, intelligence, and morality. But just because it makes these high demands upon the members of the laboring class, attempts 119 at co-operation should receive all reasonable encouragement.

XIII. PROBLEMS OF DISTRIBUTION.

So far we have discussed for the most part those economic problems that center round the production of wealth, such as the use of natural resources, large-scale production, trusts and monopolies, labor organizations, unemployment, industrial education and co-operation. Now we shall consider briefly a few of the problems that are connected with the distribution of wealth. Professor Blockmar says that the three great problems of economic society are: “First, how to create the largest amount of utilities or wealth; second, how justly to divide this amount; and third, how to make the product minister to the permanent rather than to the transient well-being of society.” The first problem we have already discussed; the second forms the subject of the present section; while the third will be taken up in the next section. Within the last century the center of interest in the practical application of economic principles has decidedly shifted from production to distribution. The earlier writers in economics, as shown in the mercantile lists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, even Adam Smith, were chiefly interested in methods of increasing a nation’s wealth. With the introduction of the factory system and the opening up of vast natural resources by improvements in mining and transportation, the production of wealth has enormously increased, and now the question of the method of its distribution or division is felt to be more pressing.

Under the term distribution two different processes are included, which should be distinguished before going further. The first is called functional distribution, and concerns the distribution of the product of industry or the income of society, among the different factors of production. That is to say, land, labor, capital and 120 managerial ability have contributed in varying degrees to the production of a certain amount of current wealth, and the problem of functional distribution is to ascertain how the net product resulting from these joint efforts is divided. How much goes to rent, how much to wages, how much to interest and how much to profits? The second kind of distribution is the division of the wealth of society among individuals or families; this is personal distribution, and raises the question of poverty and great wealth. In discussing these problems, however, we must remember that wealth production and distribution takes place in modern society under conditions imposed by the social order in which we live; these were defined as competition, private property and personal liberty. If any modifications of the processes of distribution were desired, it would undoubtedly be necessary to alter these fundamental institutions.

John Stuart Mill held that production was governed by natural laws, which could be ascertained and stated, but that distribution was artificial and hence that it was not possible to discover constant and certain laws governing it. Beginning mainly with Mill, the ethical question has been more and more asked as to what share each factor in production ought to get, not merely what he does receive. “Hence the question is rising more and more as to what should be the basis of division, and many proposals have been made. It is proposed that laborers combine to get a larger share. Hence we have trade unions, Knights of Labor, etc. It is proposed that capitalists and landlords give a larger proportion of the produce to the laborers than they are able to secure by mere private struggle. Hence we have proposals for profit-sharing and various charities. It is proposed that laborers combine to be their own capitalists and landlords; hence we have all sorts of co-operative and communistic experiments. It is asserted that the wealthy classes have so much power in their hands that private 121 co-operation cannot succeed in competing against them, and hence it is proposed that all the people, through government (municipal, state, and national), secure all the means of production (capital and land, so far at least as land is used for production), and operate them collectively for the equitable good of all, the people thus being their own employers, capitalists, and landlords. Hence we have municipalism, nationalism, socialism. It is claimed that capitalists and landlords have been able to secure, and are today able to maintain, their large share in distribution, only through the favoritism of the Government. Hence we have proposals for free trade, the single tax,… the extreme proposals of the very great minimizing of the state in individualism, or the abolition of the Government in anarchism.” In view of this very imperfect list it is not too much to say that most of the economic problems that are stirring society today are connected with the distribution of wealth.

The first question that suggests itself in the discussion of functional distribution is as to whether it is actually governed by natural law, so-called. It is observable that the amounts which go to rent, to wages, to interest, and to profits are regularly quite constant. What determines this? The socialists contend that natural distribution is the only just method and insist that the state should regulate this just distribution; they are not clear, however, as to what this natural method is. Henry George uses the same phrase when he says, “the just distribution of wealth is manifestly a natural distribution of wealth, and this is that which gives to him who makes it and secures to him who saves it.” All such statements beg the question for they all turn on the use of the word natural. Many modern economists are inclined to assert that the question of distribution is not an ethical one, not a question of what ought to be but of what 122 is. Thus Professor Tetter says: “Distribution in economics is the seasoned explanation of the way in which the total product of a society is divided among its members. It is a logical question and not an ethical one.” And Professor Clark writes, “There is, in short, a deep-acting natural law at work amid the confusing struggles of the labor market.” It will not be possible, in the brief limits of this section, to take up all the theories as to the way in which this distribution is effected among the claimants to a share of the product, but a few of the more important practical results may be stated. We shall take up the four different factors in turn.

Rent is usually defined as the return for the use of natural objects and agencies. Rent has usually been low in the United States because of the large amount of land and other natural agents available. In general it may be said that when any factor of production is relatively abundant in comparison with the other factors, its share of the product will be small. Henry George, however, argues that as the amount of land is limited and is now practically all taken up, the future will see a constantly increasing demand for land, and hence the landlords will absorb most of the future income of society. This is true of most of land and other natural agents especially in demand, as choice sites in our cities, anthracite coal mines, etc. The practical problem that suggests itself is, do we wish private property in land? The socialists answer no, but the individualists insist that the best use has been and can be made of land only by reducing it to private ownership. In practice, however, even in modern individualistic societies, the absolute and unregulated use of land by the owner is restricted in various ways.

Interest is the amount paid for the use of capital. From the time of 123 the church fathers in the Middle Ages down to the present-day socialists, interest and the private ownership of productive capital have formed favorite objects of attack. The justification of interest lies in the fact that men prefer present goods to future goods--a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush--and interest is the difference in value between the two at the present moment; it is time value. The justification of private property, on the other hand, lies rather in its expediency than in any inherent and unalterable law of nature. It has developed with civilization and has been, without question, a fundamental cause of material progress. But moderate individualists even, as John Stuart Mill, have attacked the institution of inheritance while leaving the main edifice of private property untouched. They would limit absolutely the amount of bequest or, as President Roosevelt advocated, would use inheritance taxes as a means of breaking up large fortunes.

Profits are the reward which the manager of a business receives for his services in organizing and superintending the business. This share of the social income was the last to be recognized by economists, and its rightfulness is even yet denied by the socialists. They insist that profits are really the earnings of labor which have been withheld from the laborer by the superior skill and economic strength of the capitalist manager; they are institutional robbery, the exploitation of labor. It is not possible to take up the arguments on this point, but it may be said in a word that the manager of business contributes a needed service to the work of society just as truly as the laborer does, and receives his earned reward in the form of profits.

Wages are the reward of labor. It is often assumed that wages are lower than they should be, that the laborer in some way is deprived of a portion of what he has rightfully earned. It is worth while inquiring briefly how the share of labor in the distribution of the 124 social income is determined. Various theories have been developed to explain the distributive process, of which we may notice three. The oldest in point of time and the most pessimistic theory held that wages were fixed by competition and the growth of population at the bare subsistence minimum, a bare starvation level. If by some happy chance wages were raised above this point, then the population would speedily multiply and the increased competition thus brought about among the laborers would depress wages again to the lowest amount sufficient to support a family. Under the name of the “iron law of wages,” this theory is still put forth by the socialists as the explanation--together with the institution of private property--of wages. Historically, however, this theory has happily been proven untrue, as the advance in the standard of living among the working class during the past century testifies. It has now been almost wholly superseded by the so-called productivity theory, which asserts that wages depend upon the productivity of labor; that the laborer gets what he produces, and that this share is assured him by the working out of the competitive process under free competition. If this theory is true, there can be no ethical question raised; if labor is dissatisfied with its share, then it must increase its productive efficiency. As a matter of fact wages have always been high in the United States because labor has been relatively scarce compared with land and capital, and consequently its marginal productivity has been high. The third theory says that wages are a result of bargaining, of competition in the labor market, a question of supply and demand. Under these circumstances it is largely a question of economic strength between labor and capital, and if labor is well-organized, alert, and able to drive a good bargain, then wages will be high; otherwise they will be low. While there is an element of truth in the last theory, the second one seems the truest explanation of 125 general wages; certain it is that no monopoly power of labor, however great, could permanently maintain wages at a level higher than the actual produce of labor. The element of truth in the first theory is that wages can never, for any length of time, fall below the cost of subsistence.

Of more practical interest are questions connected with the personal distribution of wealth. In this connection arise such problems as the increase of large fortunes, the causes of poverty, and similar questions. The boast of our Republic has long been that here opportunity was open to all, that wealth was widely diffused, and that such inequalities of fortune as characterized the nations of the Old World were happily lacking. In the fifty-five years, 1850-1904, the per capita value of all property in the United States exactly quadrupled; how has this increase been distributed? Unfortunately we have no complete statistics on this point, yet reliable estimates by authoritative writers all tell the same story--of great concentration of wealth in the possession of a comparatively few rich families. In 1893 Mr. George K. Holmes concluded from a study of the statistics of farm and home ownership in the United States that “91 per cent of the families of the country own no more than about 29 per cent of the wealth, and 9 per cent of the families own about 71 per cent of the wealth.” A more accurate and satisfactory statement can be drawn from the income-tax returns for Prussia, which tells almost the same story with regard to income. The table on the following page is condensed from an article by Professor A. Wagner:

According to these figures over two-thirds of the persons--heads of families or single adults--had only one-third of the income, while 3½ per cent had another third. Another striking fact shown by the table is the large proportion of persons receiving incomes of less

Distribution of Income in Prussia, 1902 126

==============+============+============ | Per cent | Per cent Income | of persons | of income --------------+------------+------------ Below $214 | 70.7 | 33.0 $214 to $714 | 25.8 | 34.9 Over $714 | 3.5 | 32.1 --------------+------------+------------

than $214 a year, the minimum taxable income. It shows the poverty of the mass of the people as well as the concentration of wealth among the few rich. In the United States, where the natural resources have been so much richer than in Germany, a similar table would probably show a much smaller proportion under the Prussian minimum, but on the other hand it would probably show a greater concentration of income in the hands of a few. Europe has as yet no billionaire. The great fortunes of the United States have been made possible by the unrivaled opportunities for the exploitation of rich natural resources, the appropriation of natural monopolies, and to special privileges and opportunities in manufactures and transportation. The importance of monopoly privileges in the distribution of wealth is well shown by the results of an investigation made in 1892 by the New York Tribune into the sources of the fortunes of millionaires. It was undertaken to show that protection was not the main cause; but while it proved this, it showed clearly that most of them were built up on monopoly. “Of the 4,047 millionaires reported, only 1,125, or 28 per cent, obtained their fortunes in protected industries…. About 78 per cent of the fortunes were derived from permanent monopoly privileges, and only 22 per cent from competitive industries unaided by natural and artificial monopolies…. Furthermore, if the size of fortunes is taken into account it will be found that perhaps 95 per cent of the total values represented by these millionaire fortunes is due to those investments 127 classed as land values and natural monopolies, and to competitive industries aided by such monopolies.” It is essential to the stability of our democratic institutions that all special privileges be absolutely prohibited, and that monopoly be brought under strict government control and regulation. Improper methods of wealth accumulation should certainly be prevented.

The opposite question of poverty has already been discussed and some of the causes of poverty pointed out. It will be sufficient here to try to answer the question which has often been asked: Are the rich growing richer and the poor poorer? Though the first part of the question has just been affirmed, the second part may be denied. The nineteenth century has witnessed a vast improvement in the condition of the laboring man, who has shared in the increasing wealth which he has helped to produce. Wages have steadily increased, the hours of labor have been reduced, and the material well-being of the wage-earner is greater today than it has ever been before. It has more than once been pointed out by writers on this subject that with an equal distribution of wealth no one would be well-to-do, while many others insist that inequality in itself is a desirable thing. Greater diffusion of wealth can come about only by very slow processes, and permanent plenty can be secured only by a great increase in the accumulations of capital and the efficiency of each worker. Any suggested reform, therefore, that would weaken the motives to thrift and industry must be rejected.

XIV. SAVING AND SPENDING.

The goal and purpose of all economic activities is the satisfaction of human wants. The object of production is consumption. We work because we desire and need various things which we can get only if we produce them or earn the money to buy them. In this section we take up some 128 of the problems connected with the rational use or consumption of the wealth which is continually being produced. We have seen something of the conditions under which it is produced, and the manner in which it is distributed; we must now study the not less important subject of its application to human needs and desires. The great question is, how can we get the largest and most rational return for a given expenditure? Before trying to answer this question, it will be helpful to present a summary statement of actual expenditures in different places:

Expenditures for Different Purposes.

===============+========+==========+=========+=========+========= Items | United | New York | Great | Prussia | Average | States | City | Britain | | | 1903 | | | | ---------------+--------+----------+---------+---------+--------- Food | 43.1 | 43.4 | 51.4 | 55.0 | 48.2 Clothing | 13.0 | 10.6 | 18.1 | 18.0 | 14.9 Rent | 18.1 | 19.4 | 13.5 | 12.0 | 15.8 Fuel and light | 5.7 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 4.8 Miscellaneous | 20.1 | 21.5 | 13.5 | 10.0 | 16.3 +--------+----------+---------+---------+--------- Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 ---------------+--------+----------+---------+---------+---------

From this table it is seen that practically half of the income of average working-class families is expended for food, and five-sixths of it goes for the bare necessaries. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this be spent wisely. The remaining one-sixth, included here under the head “miscellaneous,” comprises such items as education, care of health, comfort, mental and bodily recreation, etc. It is manifest that this group can be expanded in only one of two ways: either by enlarging the total income, or by economizing on the other items by a wiser and better-ordered expenditure. The former question has already been discussed; here we are concerned only with the latter. Dr. Frederick Engel, a Prussian statistician, laid down certain laws with regard to consumption: as the income of a family increases a smaller percentage is spent for food and a larger 129 percentage for education, health, recreation, etc.; while the percentage spent for clothing, rent, fuel and light remains approximately the same. A higher civilization and culture for the mass of the people can only be secured by expanding the group of culture expenditures. As long as these remain unsatisfied for the ordinary family we cannot claim to have attained our economic goal. The author of a recent study of conditions in New York City, where the cost of living is high, concludes that a “fair living wage for a workingman’s family in New York City should be at least $728 a year, or a steady income of $14 a week.” The actual earnings are certainly below this figure.

One of the problems which has often proved very puzzling is the relation between saving and spending. At what point should one stop spending in order to save? If the satisfaction of our wants is the object of production, why should we save at all? This is the point urged by the author of a specious little book called “The Fallacy of Saving.” The problem can be most easily solved by a more careful analysis of terms. In the popular view, saving involves the withdrawal of goods or money from use, while spending means putting them to immediate use. The spendthrift is proverbially popular. “If the rich do not spend, the poor die of hunger,” said Montesquieu. Saving may take the form of hoarding or withdrawing things from use, but nowadays this is practised only by misers; saving ordinarily takes the form of investment in some productive enterprise, either directly or through a bank. In this way a demand is created for goods just as truly as though the money had been spent for a dinner or a suit of clothes. Saving is spending, but it is spending for the future rather than the present; it usually causes the production of permanent material goods rather than transient or immaterial pleasures. Another cause of the confusion of ideas on this subject is that we always speak of money 130 and thus lose sight of the acts of production and consumption that lie back of the money transfer. We see that money is transferred by spending and think that it increases trade. Consequently, when a prodigal spends his money foolishly, it is excused on the ground that it makes employment and puts money in circulation. We forget that it would have been “put in circulation” just as effectively if he had not spent it, but had placed it in a bank. If we look back of the money transfer, we see that usually there has been a foolish or wasteful expenditure, sometimes an absolute destruction of wealth. A fire which burns down valuable buildings is an absolute social loss, even though employment be given to masons and carpenters in putting them up again.

A third confusion of ideas that exists in the popular mind is due to an over-emphasis of the desirability of work for its own sake. The man who “makes work” is thought to be doing a desirable thing, even though this results from the unnecessary destruction of useful things. Now the real goal of all rational economic endeavor is not production for its own sake, but consumption; not work, but the gratification of wants. Every destruction of durable commodities which lessens the power to gratify wants is a loss to a community and no juggling with words can make it anything else. If it gives employment to labor, that means that the labor has been diverted from the production of other things to which it would have been devoted. Edward Atkinson several years ago calculated that every year fires destroyed property in the United States to the amount $150,000,000. That workmen are employed to reproduce the buildings, etc., can surely not be reckoned as a social gain. There is great danger in a commercial age like ours of forgetting that work is not an end in itself, but simply a means to an end. But it may be argued that unless these men had been given 131 employment of this sort, they would have starved. It is conceivable that during or after a revolution industry would be so interrupted that ordinary employments would not be open. But in ordinary times such a statement is simply an assertion of the fallacious lump-of-labor theory, that there is just so much work to be done and no more. New wants are continually pressing for satisfaction, waiting only for the prior ones to be satisfied before they urge their claims. So soon as the old ones are satisfied, additional employment is provided in meeting the newer desires. The aim of society is to expand continually the circle of gratified desires. As durable goods and agents are accumulated by the process of saving, this becomes increasingly possible in every progressive society. Useless destruction involves sheer waste and cannot be justified on any grounds.