104 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND WAGES

that what would be a living wage for one man or family
would be poverty or luxury for another. But the fact remains
that wages must be set in reference to the cost of living.
Tabor otherwise becomes a commodity, and unless certain
standards of living are predicated in any wage dispute, we
shall get our labor down to a point where certain standards
of citizenship also are forgotten. In spite of all we may say,
economic status does affect intelligence and morals. And if
we are to force labor down in a comparative market to a
standard lower than the American average, we shall also
force our nation’s ideals down to a low standard.
It is begging the question to declare that a man with five
children should have a “living wage” lower than a man with
ten children. It is cheap to point out the fact that a man
whose family is practically self-supporting must have a different
 living wage from the man with a houseful of little
ones. For all that is beside the point. When an average
man’s family income is ascertained he should have enough
every Saturday night to live decently in self-respect and
educate his children. If he has no children, that is his loss,
and if he has more than the average number of children,
that is his gain. And the average man’s wage should not
be changed because of the exceptional man’s advantage or
disadvantage. . . .
When a living wage is established for the unskilled, then
let every man’s skill and intelligence have free play and let
him sell these in the best market and for his own advancement.
 That is the philosophy of the living wage.

 EONARD WOOD, MAJOR-GENERAL, U. S. A, GOVERNOR-GEN-ERAL
 OF CUBA AND OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS!

He should receive a wage that not only permits him to
keep body and soul together, but enables him to lay by something
 for the future.
1 «Teonard Wood on National Issues,” compiled by E. J. David, Doubleday,
 Page & Co., 1920, p. 21.