a week, it appears a palpable straining of language to suggest that differences of 'needs' correspond to this descrepancy of pay.For, though it is true that in the existing state of the market for legal ability and experience the town may not be able to get a really good town clerk for less, that state of the legal market is itself the result of artificial restrictions in opportunity of education and of competition, which have no natural basis and which a society versed in sound social economy will alter.But the fact that the existing interpretation of needs is frequently artificial and exaggerated must not lead us to ignore the element of truth embodied in it.The wages of policemen, the real wages of soldiers and sailors, are determined with conscious relation to the needs of able-bodied men engaged in hard physical work, and with some regard to the existence of a wife and family.But I need not labour the point of the difference between the salary and the 'commodity' view of labour.The acceptance among all thoughtful employers of 'the economy of high wages' applied within reasonable limits is itself the plainest testimony to the actuality of the 'needs'
basis of income.That unless you pay a man enough to satisfy his needs, you cannot get from him his full power of work, is a proposition which would meet with universal acceptance.
But it will commonly be added that the safest way of measuring needs is by means of output.This output, measured by work-time, or by piece, or by a combination of the two, still remains the general basis of payment.
How far is this conformable to our theory of human distribution, according to needs? That there is some conformity will, I think, be easily perceived.
If one docker unloads twice as much grain or timber as another docker in the same time, or if one hewer working under the same conditions 'gets'
twice as much coal as another, there is a reasonable presumption that the larger actual quantity of labour has taken a good deal more 'out of him'.
Putting the comparison on its barest physical basis, there has been a larger expenditure of tissue and of energy, which must be replaced by a larger consumption of food.A strong man doing much work may not be exerting himself more than a weak man doing little work.But all the same there is some proportion between the respective values of their output of physical energy and their intake of food.This, of course, is a purely Physiological application of our law of human distribution.It applies both to sorts of work and to individual cases in the same sort of work, and constitutes an 'organic' basis for difference of 'class' wages and individual wages.
We urge that it is applicable to other factors of consumption than food, and throughout the whole area of production and consumption.But applied as a practical principle for determining distinctions of class or grade payment, and still more for individual payment within a class, it has a very limited validity.Rigorously applied it is the pure 'commodity' view of labour, the antithesis of the 'salary' view which best expresses the 'needs' economy.But, though output cannot be taken as an accurate measure of 'needs' for the purpose of remuneration, it clearly ought to be taken into account.The practical reformer will indeed rightly insist that it must be taken into account.For he will point out that output is a question not merely of physiological but still more of moral stimulus.A strong man will not put out more productive energy than his weaker fellow unless he knows he is to get more pay; a skilful man cannot be relied upon to use his full skill unless he personally gains by doing so.If the sense of social service were stronger than it is, a bonus for extra strength or skill might be unnecessary.But as human nature actually stands, this stimulus to do a 'best' that is better than the average, must be regarded as a moral 'need' to be counted for purposes of remuneration along with the physiological needs.Too much need not be made of this distinctively selfish factor.In many sorts of work, indeed, it may not be large enough to claim recognition in remuneration.But where it is important, the application of our needs economy of distribution must provide for it.This admission does not in the least invalidate our organic law.For the moral nature of a man is as 'natural' as his physical nature.Both are amenable to education, and with education will come changes which will have their just reactions upon the policy of remuneration.
