Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

church in England has been wont to occupy in general education.

83. FAMILY; STATE-WHICH?-At times the question has arisen as to the superiority in educational interests, Shall the parent or the state determine what the child shall be taught?

This is quite like the question of superiority in the family itself, as between man and wife. Each has its own sphere of duties and rights, and cach in its own sphere has the superiority.

In a well informed and well regulated household this question of superiority will never arise; neither side will encroach upon the other. But if the wife, without reason, claims rights that do not belong to her, the man may assert his superiority; on the other hand, if the man, without reason, claims rights, the woman may not be able to assert superiority.

In a moral as well as a legal view, the question of superiority must be subordinate to that of duty.

Under Democratic-Republican institutions, education to a certain extent, and to a large extent, must be in common; that the youth in all stations in life may learn to respect each other, and to mingle together in public on an easy footing of kind regard born of youthful associations and a recognition of common interests and of manly virtues.

The question, then, is one of duty, and can become one of superiority only when duty fails.

In education, what duties do the individual and

the family owe to the state; and what does the state owe to them?

It is an ethical question in moral and civic relations.

As individuals and as families, men are in duty bound to realize a culture that best qualifies for citizenship and the service of the state; and on the other hand, the state, in the interest of the people and of progressive life-giving, life-preserving institutions, is bound to require of the individual and of the family this necessary culture whenever a deficiency occurs - from whatever cause-whether from the general laxity of chronic ignorance and indolence, or from the tendencies of a partial or misleading or vicious home or private education.

84. CAPITAL: LABOR-THE IDEA.-Before we can advisedly enter upon an ethic view of capital and labor in their relation to each other, it is necessary that we have some preliminary consideration. and understanding of their economic principles.

(1) Capital is not Labor, though in the United States the capitalist largely combines his own labor with his capital, and in general is a hard worker.

Capital derives its meaning from caput, the head, and implies that Mind-wisdom and prudence-has been exercised in taking care of the united products of prior capital and labor to secure means for the employment of present and future labor.

Capital in its idea also includes material; it means the supply of all that is necessary to keep work at work.

The farmer-capitalist provides land, teams, farm machinery, seed, and also food and cash, the wages of his hired help.

The manufacturer provides mills, power, material or raw stock, and suitable machinery for its manufacture, as well as cash wages for the employee.

Capital is like the main-spring of a watch; it sets all the wheels in motion; and when capital is destroyed by fire or flood or riot, there is so much less power for the employment of labor.

(2) Labor is not Capital.--It is becoming fashionable to speak of labor as the capital of the laboring man; but labor is not capital-is not entitled to the earnings of capital; it is a misnomer and a misleading notion which a public lecturer or teacher will now and then carelessly give utterance to; it tends to the erroneous notion that the laborer has a right to some of the profits of capital; but he has a right only to fair compensation for good work in aid of capital prosecuting the business, whether there be profit or loss. If we say that labor is capital, and hence that the laborer is entitled to share in the profits, by parity of reasoning we also say that he must share in the loss, when there is one, as is often the case.

It is true that in a continual course of prosperity or of adversity-"good times, hard times"— the wages of labor will advance or decline, as they should; but the present time or season can alone be regarded in determining wages.

There may be, and often is, by agreement, a share of "profit and loss" accorded to the old and

skilled employee. This arrangement proves beneficial. Thereby the employee becomes, in some degree, a partner and a capitalist. He puts his intellect, skill and attention more to the work; takes increased interest.

This is what he gives-the quid pro quo-to entitle him to a share in profit and loss, and in a qualified sense to be called a capitalist--not in a full sense unless he also puts in material to work on.

(3) The wages of Labor means what wages or pay, in the medium of exchange-gold or silver coin-a man is entitled to in virtue of what he accomplishes or produces by muscular exertion. If the laborer furnishes his own tools; the woodchopper his axe; the stone-mason his hammers; the plasterer his trowels; the farm hand his hoe-these tools are to be regarded as an extension of the man's muscular ability; and so also is his skill and effectiveness in the use of tools and machinery to be counted as an adjunct of manual labor. The amount of wages then depends directly on the quantity and quality of the work done, of the fabric produced, and the value of wages thus determined in amount depends on its power in purchasing such things as the laborer needs.

(4) Value of Products: The capitalist, the producer, is justified in valuing his products only by the quantity and quality of the labor used in their production, as compared with the quantity and quality of the labor employed in producing those goods which he gets in exchange.

Thus, if a farmer in harvest time, on account of a

diem wages,

scarcity of help, pays three dollars per he gets no more for his wheat, oats or hay than if he paid but one dollar per day-which is, perhaps, all he can pay without loss, when wheat is less than one dollar per bushel. The extra wages he has paid does not at all raise the market price of wheat. He can adjust the loss only by extra curtailment in family expenses, or in the rate of wages to his regular help. He must rob Peter to pay Paul.

So is it with the lumberman and the manufacturers of wool and of cotton goods; the market value of their products does not depend on the cost of labor, but on the quantity and quality of the labor put into them as compared with that put into what they receive in exchange-supplies, machinery, wool, cotton, cash. This is the underlying principle in estimating the value of goods sold and bought. Of course it is modified by accidents-as a shortage or a superabundance in supply or in demand; but these accidents, for most part, are too dimly foreshadowed to modify labor contracts.

(5) Value of Labor: The value of labor to the employer of it depends also upon what he can obtain in exchange for the products of labor, after deducting a fair proportion for his own time and skill in supervision, and for the use and risk of his capital in aid of production.

The due adjustment of wages is, then, a complicated matter, in which no one is more competent to judge than the employer himself, who in reason can see through his own business better than another.

1

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »