THE NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 231
studies the course of increased productivity, besides being im-
pressed by a general increase, has also to acknowledge that
apparently there are regressive forces at work which occa-
sionally get the upper hand and interrupt the general move-
ment. In 1921 and 1924, to name the most recent examples,
we not only failed to make any general gains, but we fell back
seriously. Such a period of recession always sets us back a
year or two and provides an interlude in which even the best
efforts are wasted. This leads to the general conclusion that,
altho the increase in per-man-hour productivity forms a solid
basis in technology for advance, this need not necessarily
always be registered in general gains in physical output, tak-
ing industry as a whole. . . .
Not only this, but also, if we study selective figures of
physical output, we discover certain soft spots even in what
generally are the best industrial years. Of late years one of
these has been agriculture, which, ever since the war, has, in
‘he midst of prosperity, remained sunk in a trough of depres-
sion. Others during this same period have been coal-mining
and the textile trades generally. This suggests that there
cannot be as great general advances as there might otherwise
be, so long as some areas persistently lag behind. . . .
On the whole, tho the main fact of progress stands out,
there are not grounds for too great social optimism. Plenty
remains to be done in a number of directions before our
progress can be consolidated into a permanent new level of
productivity insured by sound organization not only of local
:echnique but of general arrangements for coordination and
mutual assistance in troubled times.
Mr. Woodlief Thomas, in his very comprehensive and
permanently valuable address before the American Eco-
nomic Association, already quoted from, also reached a
similar but a more optimistic conclusion. He ended his re-
marks as follows :?
On the whole we have profited by the increasing produc-
L Ante cited, p. 225.
