132 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND WAGES

applied. This opposing attitude on the ground of impracticability
 was further supplemented by certain arguments
relative to the actual size of the average wage-earner’s
family, the questionableness of giving unmarried workers
the same basic compensation as the married ones, and
similar technical points. A statement of the argument in
opposition, as developed by proceedings before wage-arbitration
 boards and in general public discussion, may be
summarily stated as follows:
[. If a living-wage standard should be established for
unskilled workers, with corresponding increases in
differentials for those above the minimum, the productive
 capacity of the country would not be sufficient, in
terms of actual commodities, to meet the demand for
the quantities of food, clothing, housing, and other
commodities required.
The National Income was not large enough in terms
of money to provide for the payment of a living wage
as requested, without confiscating an undue share of
profits, or the normal returns to capital, and would
thus render industrial undertakings impossible. Millions
 of men would be thrown out of work, as
industry, it was claimed, would be unable to employ
them.
Proceeding further upon this assumption of the
inadequacy of the National Income to meet the “living
wage,” it was asserted that if the living-wage principle
 was applied, prices would be correspondingly
increased and there would be no gain in real wages.
From this conclusion the further inference was drawn
that if one class of wage-earners, as the railroad
workers, should receive the “living wage,” it would
cause higher freight rates and increases in commodity

Fi