THE  SOCIAL  ESTIMATE  OF  “WASTE”  LABOUR  5

necessary  for  the  season,  their  idleness  in  the  off  period
must  not  rank  as  “  unemployment  ”,  or  be  regarded  as  a
waste  of  labour-power.
§  4.  The  Social  Estimate  of  “  Waste  ”  Labour.
We  are  not  here,  however,  concerned  to  discuss  how
far  workers  in  season  trades  might  or  ought  to  make
provision  against  the  times  when  they  are  unable  to  earn
wages,  but  whether  the  labour-power  in  such  periods  is  to
be  reckoned  “superfluous”  or  “waste”.  Of  the  literal
'  superfluity  ”  there  can  be  no  question,  but  is  there
waste”  from  the  social  point  of  view?  Surely  there  is.
"I  he  case  is  not  on  all  fours  with  the  irregular  distribution
°f  work  within  the  week.  No  true  economy  of  human
forces  is  able  to  compensate  for  a  winter’s  idleness  bv
excessive  work  in  the  spring  and  summer  months.  This
waste”  may  be  due  to  inherent  irregularities  of  trade,
^ ut  it  is  not  the  less  waste.  The  “unemployment”  of
l be  painter  during  the  winter  months  is  not  rightly  classed
with  the  “  leakage  ”  between  jobs.  In  the  first  place,  a
good  deal  of  the  seasonal  unemployment  in  the  building,
dock,  and  many  other  trades  is  not  necessary  or  inherent
in  the  nature  of  the  trade,  but  is  attributable  to  the  very
existence  of  a  chronic  over-supply  of  labour.  If  there
vveie  not  so  large  a  “margin”  of  labour  to  make  sudden
ca H s  upon,  the  irregularity  of  many  trades  would  be
largely  modified.  Climatic  and  other  natural  causes  will
doubtless  impose  a  certain  amount  of  irregularity,  but  a
fai  more  regular  distribution  of  employment,  even  in  the
building  trades,  would  be  possible,  if  it  became  necessary;
and  such  readjustment  would  not  imply  a  waste  but
ultimately  an  economy  of  labour-power,  since  it  would