market. The increased purchasing power of his wages may be lost at any time by the competition of the unemployed who tend to force the employed to take a lower remuneration. The worker is thus confronted by lower wages to balance lower prices.

The employer, too, is compelled to keep in the procession of low cost, producing cheaply when he needs the supply, closing his mills when the demand falls and his supply is sufficient. This condition of affairs produces the unemployed.

It is the presence of the unemployed that creates the social necessity for the eight-hour day, so it is urged. A large body of unemployed increases the burdens of society, and enlarges the ranks of criminals and those dependent upon charity. The trade unions are jeopardized by the greater difficulty of keeping up their organization and their rates. Union wages fall, demand for commodities declines, the weaker concerns fail, and consolidation of interests results, bringing another social problem for solution.

The wear and tear upon human life steadily increases under modern methods of production. This is the third reason urged for the adoption of the eight-hour day. If men are to stand as heads of families, as electors, and even as operators of machines, they must have time for rest, for education, and for family life. The responsibility of government increasingly falls upon the working classes in a democracy. Shorter hours of labor alone can give the worker the leisure for careful study of the presentday problems thrust more and more upon the electorate for decision.

The stanch followers of trade-unionism believe that in the philosophy just enunciated they have a solution of the question of the unemployed, and consequent fluctuation of wages; but to this the great socialist element in the trade-union movement replies that the reduction of hours is a necessary feature of a labor program, but that it is unsatisfactory and reactionary as a substitute for the socialist program. Nothing but the latter can overcome the blighting influence of overproduction under the machine régime of private property. To the socialist the introduction of new machinery, higher speeds, and reorganization

will always displace more workers than can be employed by a reduction of hours. In other words, to them the eight-hour day is a palliative, not a solution, of present-day evils. To this the reply is sometimes made: "If eight hours will not bring the desired result, then six, certainly four, hours a day will employ those out of work."

It is at this point that we may turn to a careful examination of the eight-hour-day philosophy and the questions kindred to it. Fundamentally there can be no objections to the desirability of the eight-hour day; but to the philosophy and basis of the argument very serious objection may be taken. Under the eighthour-day movement is an abiding belief in the power of the standard of living to increase wages, and that demand for commodities constitutes the principal employing force of labor. From this point of view, shorter hours mean increased standard of living and wider consumption, leading to a larger demand for commodities, and as a consequence to extended employment of workers. But "want" and "demand" are not synonymous terms. Want does not develop into demand unless accompanied by purchasing power. Hence we must come back to the source of wages upon which the whole question of the eighthour day hinges. The wage-earner does not influence the market and produce the results noted in the philosophy of the short-hour movement, except as he is the possessor of material things. Undoubtedly the rate of wages does depend upon the demand for labor, but in turn the demand for labor rests upon the aggregate capital of the community, which is determined by the gross production and the demand for commodities, while the gross production is governed by the productivity of labor. Wages are thus ultimately paid out of product.

In this statement of the source of wages it will be noted that the demand for commodities determines the amount of capital that will be used for productive purposes, but in no sense does an increase of wages rest solely upon the cost of subsistence. Increase of wages, as well as reduction of hours, is limited by the producing power of labor. Whether the laborer gets all he is entitled to does not materially affect the arguments advanced

Lake

for the eight-hour day. Employers will pay for production, and no more. It is a most dangerous fallacy that looks upon work as definite in amount, that must be done regardless of wages or number to be employed. Employment must rest ultimately upon the amount of wealth created. Consequently, the eight-hourday question resolves itself into this query: Can as much work be done in eight hours as in ten ? It is evidently presumed in the philosophy of the movement that this is impossible, since a great army of the unemployed are to re-enter the ranks of industry when such a day is secured.

As a means of solving the unemployed problem the eighthour day has no value except as it abolishes overtime and all its kindred evils. The phenomenon of non-employment is due in a large measure to sickness, shiftlessness of individual laborers, and the fluctuations of commercial credit resulting in the closing of mills and the discharge of workers. Upon the first two the eight-hour day has no visible effect; upon the third, by abolishment of overtime, it may have a most important bearing. Employment and production would be rendered more stable, and periods of non-employment and overtime would be displaced by continuous employment of the worker. Objection to overtime as a usual thing is more on the ground of the destruction of seasonal trades and the failure to supply press orders. some instances the abandonment of overtime would not materially affect the season of employment, but there is no reason why press orders may not be anticipated by buyer and seller, causing a more equitable distribution of work throughout the year. On the other hand, it is urged that to cut the hours of the day will give greater opportunity for overtime, but this may be adequately answered by the vote of trade unions upon this point; although individually the members may favor such practice, in the long run it means a lowered rate and a contracted area of employment. ti

In

The vast majority of the advocates of this movement favor it because they hope the blighting competition of the unemployed may be removed by the reduction of hours of labor. Such experience as has been had in various lands where the eight-hour

day has been in vogue hardly bears out the hope for such a result. In Victoria the unemployed are still evident in great numbers. The organization of the "New Unionism" in this Australian state is proof of the inability of the eight-hour day to absorb those out of work. It may be boldly stated that no provision such as the one under discussion is able to solve the difficulties which have their root in the whole economic basis of industry. Nevertheless, the eight-hour day has its reward and is worth seeking.

Not, then, as a means of employing the "reserve army of industry,” as the unemployed are sometimes called, is the eighthour day to be advocated, but rather as a means of giving to men a wider interest in life, the possibility of greater culture, and the surety of education commensurate with the problems now forced upon our democracy for solution. It is not, then, as a private measure that this movement is acceptable, but as a public necessity. More important still is the query: Can such a day be attained? Remembering that wages depend upon the productivity of labor, it remains to be seen how far an eighthour day is likely to impair production and in consequence injure the wealth-producing power of the country. Experience, however, furnishes an answer, for in many manufacturing plants it has been shown that in the long run the men are able to produce as much in eight as in ten hours, while the proprietors add such eloquent testimonials as "less drunkenness," "greater regularity of attendance," and "better class of men at work." If the eight-hour day is productive of higher intelligence, it must bring better results. In the English coal mines the eighthour day has been the rule for some years, with no special diminution in the output. This mysterious result, defiant of the "rule of three," is due to the power of greater intensity of work during a shorter time - evidence of the fact that the energy of the worker has not decreased from day to day from the long hours of labor.

In the various occupations where no products are created, but exchange alone carried on, there is no reason why trade might not be confined to shorter hours than at present. The

fear of loss of custom and the reluctant advantage to a neighboring merchant keep men from cutting down the hours of clerks. In reality there is no reason why buyers could not easily conform their purchases to the hours set by the eighthour day. But in the railway and street-car service the public demands trains and cars at all times. The eight-hour day in such instances would mean increased expense of operation; but the public would get a better service by the use of two shifts of men in the case of street railways than at the present time. More than that, the general adoption of eight hours would confine travel to more limited time, reducing comparatively the expense over the present lack of concentrated travel. The present system keeps men at work for long hours, endangering the traveling public by possible carelessness due to sleepiness and fatigue. On the railroad systems even worse conditions prevail, but with much better excuse. The state has from time to time attempted to interfere, but without marked success. The eight-hour day is possible in many divisions of railroad work, and when attainable should be insisted upon by the public for its own protection.

The interests of the individual and the community are by no means identical in the establishment of the eight-hour day. The community desires the highest good and greatest energies of its workers through long periods of time. This can be accomplished in most industries without any accompanying loss of productive power by shorter hours of work, as has been proven in the experience of many industries. On the other hand, in specific instances and in the operation of railroads and street cars the shorter day will increase expense of operation considerably, though not by any very large percentage. In some industries where labor is not employed continuously, but periodically, and gathered from any and all sources, the employer finds it to his advantage to push the hours of work to the longest possible limit. Human energies can stand a pace of this kind for a time, and as the employer does not worry about a future supply of workers he expects to win an increased profit by such a policy. These industries have come to be