LOWER COSTS AND HIGHER WAGES 221

—even that was a big step. There was one more to take.
Now more and more wages are regarded as labor's proportional
 share in the total product of wealth. It is not enough
‘hat wages shall be high. It is necessary that they shall be
proportional, for if they are not, if the output of wealth increases
 faster than wages, then no matter how high wages
may be, the relative buying power of labor will fall. This is
‘he view which comprehends the wage-earner primarily as
a consumer, in which capacity has is indispensable to prosperity.

The great error of industry had been to see the wagecarner
 only as a producer. Not until it began to see him as
a consumer was it possible for a new philosophy of division
fo be 1tmagined.
The equally great error of the wage-earner had been to
see himself only as a consumer, and it was not until he began
to see himself also as a producer that it was possible for any
philosophy of progressive division to act. There was nothing
for it to act upon.
These two revolutions of thought have definitely occurred,
and there is, for that reason, now the basis of a common
anguage between capital and labor. . . .
The classic economic dogma of antagonism is breaking
down. We are privileged to witness that catastrophe, being
the authors of it. Wages and profits are not opposed. Both
derive from production. There is properly no conflict between
 producer and consumer. How could there be? Producer
 and consumer are the same person. Prosperity is from
increasing the sum of social wealth for purposes of proporional
 division, and all is supported by another’s part. One
pursuing private gain in a ruthless manner as an exclusive
end is a wild piper playing his own tune in a symphony
and. He is not of our time and way of life. . . .
A proportional wage for labor, a proportional wage for
capital, and from the profits that are over, a distribution of
benefits to the property, to the workers and to the public—
that is management’s idea of division.