Let us assume that a worker is 6 hours on this work, and in that time produces 220 pieces. The reward quantity is 27 per hour, and for the 6 hours is 27 × 6 = 162. The job rate is, say, 24s., because this work would be done by unskilled or partially skilled labour. This is 6d. per hour, and if the worker produces 27 or less pieces per hour that is what he receives. If he produces more than 27 per hour, he gets paid at the rate of 6d. per 27 for the excess, this being equivalent to being paid for all the time saved.
The production in 6 hours is 220; the reward quantity for that time is 162, and the standard quantity 216. It is seen that efficiency in this case is over 100 per cent., because 220 is 4 more than standard. Reward is paid on 220-162 = 58, and payment is made at the rate of 6d. for each 27. If we divide 58 by 27, and multiply the result by 6d., this will give the amount of reward—namely, 1s. This is the reward for 6 hours' work, and is 2d. per hour, so that the worker gets 8d. per hour instead of 6d.
Efficiency is about 102 per cent.
The following shows these examples in tabular form:
The foregoing examples are of average workers. The following is an example of what a good worker can do, and, as the method of calculation is given above, a tabular statement is all that is necessary:
The result is not an exceptional one.
After the time study has been made, an instruction card is made out for the job. On this card all the particulars are given—how to do the job, the sequence of operations, the tools to be used, the base, standard and reward times or productions, the job rate, and any other necessary information.
It is by acting in accordance with the instructions on the card that the worker can reach standard time regularly, and the foreman or setter-up and the superintendent are always ready to assist the worker in every way to attain this result.
If the operator finds he cannot reach standard time by diligent work and following the instructions, he should always inform the superintendent, in order that the matter may be investigated.
The question of spoiled work must be taken into account. It is almost impossible for all the work produced to pass inspection. Machines may not work quite right; tools become dull; material is not always the same; workers sometimes get careless.
How is this spoiled work to be dealt with?
It would be quite unfair to make the worker responsible for bad work which was due to no fault of his. It would be equally unfair for him to get paid for bad work which was due to his own carelessness or neglect.
When work is inspected, and some of it found tobe bad, it is not difficult as a rule to find where the fault for this bad work lies. If it is due to bad material or bad machining, the question arises of how far the worker is to blame. He should stop his machine and call the attention of the foreman to any fault of tools or material. If too deep a cut be taken, or if a part be badly worked by hand tools, this is the worker's fault.
Work which is spoiled by the worker or by his neglect is deducted from his gross production, and his reward is reduced accordingly.
It is quite possible that, if a large amount of bad work be produced, and the worker's total production be not very high, the amount to be deducted is greater than the amount of reward. In such a case nothing is deducted from his day wage, and nothing is held over to be deducted from reward earned in a later week. For instance, suppose a worker receives a day wage of 36s. per week. Then suppose his total production would bring him a reward of 10s., but that deductions on account of spoiled work amounted to 8s. His wages for that week would be 36s. + 10s. = 46s.—less 8s. = 38s. net. Now, if reward due to total production was 6s., and spoiled work amounted to 10s., then if spoiled work were deducted in full he would get 36s. + 6s. =42s.—less 10s. = 32s. net (namely, 4s. less than his day wage). But this is never done. He gets his full 36s., and the 4s. is cancelled altogether. Each week is taken entirely by itself, and the day wage for the week is always guaranteed, whatever happens in connection with the work or the reward.
If any of the spoiled work be rectifiable, this does not interfere with the deduction. It means that, in order to make the article pass inspection, more work, more inspection, and more supervision, must be done on it.
It happens quite frequently that stoppages occur during the progress of the work. For instance, the worker may have to wait for material; the driving belt may need tightening; tools may need changing at odd times not recorded in the instructions; metal may be hard or bad, thereby necessitating a reduction in speed—and so on.
All these things result in a reduction in the quantity of articles produced, and none of them is due to the fault of the operator.
In such cases the worker either clocks off or receives a day time allowance. He clocks off when his machine is actually stopped for fifteen minutes or more at one time. If he has several short stoppages, the foreman adds the times together and writes a day time allowance for the whole on the worker's operation card. If it be necessary to reduce the speed of the machine on account of hard metal, bad material, tools not tempered correctly, or anything that tends to lower production without actually stopping the machine, a day time allowance is made and written on the operation card; or in some cases the standard time is increased, thus giving a longer time in which to do the job.
Clocking and day time allowances mean that thistime is deducted from the time on reward. For example, suppose the machine is stopped for 1 hour during a job that has the standard time of 7 hours, and suppose the time from start to finish is 8½ hours. The 1 hour is subtracted from the 8½ and is paid for at day rate, the time for the job being calculated to be 7½ hours.
If during the week there are day time allowances of 7 hours, then there are 41 reward hours and 7 day time hours.
The effect of making day time allowances is to increase the reward, as will be seen from the following example:
Assume that during 20 hours 500 small pieces are produced, and that the machine stops 4 hours out of the 20. If the production be spread over the whole 20 hours and reward production be 24 per hour, the reward quantity is 20 × 24 = 480. Reward is therefore paid on 500-480 = 20 pieces. If the 4 hours be deducted, the net time on reward is 16 hours, not 20, and the reward quantity for the 16 hours is 16 × 24 = 384. Reward is paid on 500-384 = 116 pieces, instead of 20. Let the job rate be 8d. per hour. Then, as the reward production is 24 per hour, this means that the worker receives 8d. for each 24 pieces; the reward on 20 pieces at 24 for 8d. = 6½d., while the reward on 116 pieces = 3s. 3d. This shows how important it is to get the proper day time allowances. The 4 hours are, of course, paid for at the worker's day rate.
Efficiency is the percentage ratio between the time it takes to do the job and the standard time. Or, if we are dealing with quantities, the percentage ratio between the quantity actually produced in a certain time and the standard quantity which ought to be produced in that time.
The standard time or standard quantity is considered to be 100 per cent. efficiency, as we have seen.
If the standard time for a job be 12 hours, and the worker does it in 12 hours, his efficiency is 12/12 × 100 = 100 per cent. Suppose he does the job in less than 12 hours, then it is quite clear that his efficiency is more than 100 per cent. Say he does it in 10 hours; his efficiency is (12 × 100)/10 = 120 per cent. If he takes longer than standard time, his efficiency is less than 100 per cent. Say he does it in 15 hours; his efficiency is (12 × 100)/15 = 80 per cent. Reward time is 12 + 33⅓ per cent. of 12 = 12 + 4 = 16 hours. Suppose the worker takes the reward time of 16 hours to do the job; his efficiency is (12 × 100)/16 = 75 per cent. This efficiency is the ratio between reward time and standard time, and that is why we say the efficiency point for reward is 75 per cent.
Rule I.—In order to calculate efficiency on atime basis, the standard time must be multiplied by 100 and the result divided by the actual time.
In dealing with small parts, the basis is the standardquantityper hour—in other words, the quantity which ought to be produced in one hour in order to reach 100 per cent. efficiency.
If the standard quantity per hour be 20, and the worker is on the job 8½ hours, then the standard quantity for that time is 20 × 8½ = 170. If the worker produces 170, his efficiency is (170 × 100)/170 = 100 per cent. Suppose he produces 200 in the time, then his efficiency is more than 100 per cent., because he has produced more than the standard quantity. His efficiency is (200 × 100)/170 = 117·5 per cent. If, on the other hand, he produces less than 170, say 150, his efficiency is (150 × 100)/170 = 88·25 per cent.
Rule II.—In calculating efficiency by this method, it is evident that the quantity produced in a certain time must be multiplied by 100 and divided by the standard quantity for that time.
If a definite number of articles are to be machined, the whole quantity may be looked upon as a single job. For instance, suppose there are 3,000 pieces to be produced, and standard quantity is 150 per hour. Then thestandard timefor the whole quantity is 3000/150 = 20 hours.Reward timewill be 20 + 33⅓ percent. of 20 = 20 + 6⅔ = 26⅔ hours. Efficiency may now be worked out by the first method.
Efficiencies are, of course, calculated on thenet time—that is, on the total time of the job after day time and other allowances have been deducted.
Inorder to illustrate the general principles of the Reward System, an individual case was taken and one particular relation between reward and standard times was selected—namely, 75 per cent.
The sewing on of buttons, the laying of bricks, ploughing, shipbuilding, etc., would have served just as well, and the same general results would have been obtained.
The relation between reward and standard times has given rise to much discussion and experiment, and the relation selected in Part II. is one that appeals most strongly to the worker as he gets paid for all the time he saves. If reward begins earlier and the worker gets a proportion of the time he saves instead of the whole, reward at standard time should be just the same, or nearly so. It only means that the worker has a better chance of getting a higher reward when he is below the 100 per cent. line, and a smaller one when he is above it.
The following diagrams show the relation between reward and efficiency according to the principal methods in use at the present time, some of them being used in the same factory for different classes of work. A complete diagram is illustrated on p. 88, but, for convenience, only a portion of this is used in most of the other diagrams.
It must be noted that reward at standard time must be never less than 25 per cent. of the job rate, while 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. is fairer.
In order to find the amount of reward at any efficiency, read off the efficiency on the bottom line, run a pencil along the line corresponding to this efficiency until it touches the graph, then run the pencil along horizontally until it reaches the vertical scale. Read off the percentage of reward on the vertical scale.
It will be seen at once that any efficiency below the reward point means that no reward is earned, but that there is no reduction of day wages. (The Taylor and Gantt methods are exceptions to this rule.)
The diagram on p. 88 is a descriptive one. The first column shows wages plus reward on a wage basis of 8d. per hour.
The second column shows wages plus reward on a wage basis of 10d. per hour.
The third column shows the proportion of the reward to the day wage for any efficiency, the day wage being considered 100 per cent.
The efficiencies are shown along the bottom line, and the 100 per cent. efficiency line is dotted.
DESCRIPTIVE DIAGRAM
Two methods of wage payment are plotted on this diagram, the full line being Reward System No. 1, and the dotted line the Taylor System.
For convenience the following diagrams are enlarged: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and the Emerson diagrams consist of the rectangle ABCD, and the Taylor and Gantt diagrams consist of the rectangle EFGH. The Rowan diagram is to the same scale as the Taylor and Gantt diagrams. The relation between the vertical and horizontal scales has also been altered to make the readings clearer.
In this method, reward begins at 62·5 per cent., and half the time saved is paid for until standard time is reached. At that point and above it two-thirds of the time saved is paid for.
Reward begins early, and increases definitely until standard time is reached. Then there is a considerable jump, and after that the reward goes on regularly at a higher rate than before.
This method is, in the opinion of the writer, the best of all reward payments, and carries out the spirit of reward principles better than any other.
The worker gets some reward, however little, and there is a direct incentive to reach 100 per cent. efficiency owing to the rapid increase of reward at that point. If he gets nothing, then he either feels ashamed of his laziness, or, what is more likely, he inquires into the reason why he has received no reward. This is just what the employer wants, as it discovers inefficiencies in connection with machinery or supplies or with other processes or routines.
At the same time, an inaccurate time study neither penalises the worker too much on the one hand, nor causes excessive reward on the other.
Yet again, the worker always gets his day rate even though his efficiency falls below the reward point.
It is eminently suitable for both employer and worker.
No. 1
In this case the reward consists of payment for half the time saved, and reaches 30 per cent. increase on the wage rate at 100 per cent. efficiency.
It is suitable for many classes of work, and neither worker nor employer suffer too much in the event of an inaccurate time study.
Reward begins early and is a direct incentive to efficiency, but there is not the same urge towards the 100 per cent. line as in the case of System No. 1. Usually there is an extra bonus given, say 5 per cent., to those reaching standard time, and this takes the form of a lump sum, so that the angle of the line of increase is not interfered with.
No. 2
Reward in this case begins at 80 per cent. efficiency and all the time saved is paid for.
It is a method suitable for high-class workers and necessitates a very accurate time study. It needs a decided effort to get reward, but once reward begins it increases rapidly. An inaccurate time study means either little or no reward if the inaccuracy results in increasing the difficulty of the job; while if it makes the job easy, then excessive rewards are earned.
There is usually an extra bonus of 10 per cent. when standard time is reached.
The system is suitable for automatic work where there cannot be a great variation in efficiency, and where the operations are to a large extent taken out of the hands of the worker.
This method of payment is now adopted by Mr. Allingham after conference with trade-union officials, as it gives the worker the whole of the time saved.
No. 3
This is a diagram illustrating the example given in the foregoing description of the reward system.
Reward begins at 75 per cent. efficiency, and when standard efficiency is reached the proportion of reward to job rate is 33⅓ per cent. At this point a bonus of 5 per cent. is given, and the line of reward above this point is parallel to the line below it, but 5 per cent. higher.
All the time saved is paid for, and from this point of view it is more satisfactory to the worker.
Diagrams 1 to 4 are similar in principle to the Halsey bonus method, the vital difference being that Halsey bases his standard time on the average time taken under ordinary day or piece work conditions instead of on a time study.
No. 4
This is the system advocated by Mr. Taylor, the originator of scientific management, and hence of the Reward System.
A certain piece rate is paid until standard time is reached. At that point there is a jump to another higher rate, say from 10d. to 14d., a jump of 40 per cent. The worker gets this increase for all the work done, and the increased rate is paid on the rest of the work.
The worker makes strenuous efforts to reach 100 per cent. efficiency because of the great increase, and also because he suffers directly when he fails to obtain it.
The task set is so high that only highly skilled and rapid workers can reach it, but the reward is also high. A good man can earn as much as from 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. of his wages.
The system is one that weeds out the inefficient and the moderately efficient. It is only satisfactory to highly skilled men, the élite of the workers, and its use is therefore limited as most men will not work under it. Its greatest fault is that it penalises the worker too much for inefficiency. A man who regularly attains 90 per cent. efficiency would be considered a fair worker in most shops, but under this system he would not only receive no reward, but he would only receive 90 per cent. of his day wages.
The rate must jump at least 40 per cent. at 100per cent. efficiency, otherwise the method is not so advantageous as some of the other methods, while it is much more difficult to earn reward.
TAYLOR
This method is very similar to the Taylor System, except that the worker is not penalised so much if he fails to reach standard time.
A large increase in the piece rate is given when 100 per cent. efficiency is reached. For all time taken in excess of standard the worker gets three-quarters of his wage rate instead of the whole of it. As an example, suppose the standard time of a job be 10 hours and the worker takes 12 hours. He is paid full-day rate on 10 hours, and three-quarters the day rate on 2 hours. At 10d. per hour this amounts to—
for 12 hours' pay, which is equal to 9½d. per hour. The efficiency is (10/12) × 100 = 83·3 per cent.
The sloping line below the day rate line shows the hourly rate at various efficiencies.
After 100 per cent. efficiency is reached, the reward is just the same as in the Taylor System.
The advantage of this system over the TaylorSystem is that the loss for inefficiency is not heavy, yet it is enough to make the worker endeavour to reach standard time. This, again, is a method only suitable for highly skilled workers.
GANTT
In order to arrive at a gradually increasing bonus line, Mr. Emerson took a point on the wage line at 66·6 per cent. efficiency, and another on the 100 per cent. efficiency line at 20 per cent. bonus. The bonuses between these two efficiencies were then arranged so that for each 1 per cent. increase in efficiency the bonus increased in greater proportion. The resulting diagram is a curve which is approximately a parabola. Beyond 20 per cent. efficiency the worker gets paid for all time saved.
By this method reward begins fairly early, so that all workers should be able to get some reward. It progresses very slowly from 66·6 per cent., and at 80 per cent. is about 3¼ per cent. of the wage rate. Then it increases more quickly, and at 90 per cent. efficiency it is 10 per cent. of the wage rate, at 95 per cent. efficiency it is about 15 per cent., and at 100 per cent. efficiency it is 20 per cent.
EMERSON
One thing must be noticed: The reward above 100 per cent. efficiency is based on standard time, and not on reward time. This means that the worker gets a bonus of 20 per cent. on the time worked, and in addition to that the full rate of wages for the time he saves above standard time. As an example, take a job with a standard time of 20 hours:
This method enables the worker to get reward at a comparatively low efficiency. The reward is not much to begin with, but it is enough to induce the worker to try and get a higher efficiency. When standard time is reached, the reward is not enough, but beyond that it increases rapidly.
This method differs from all others in the variation of reward earned.
It is extremely simple in calculation, as the worker gets 10 per cent. increase in wages for every 10 per cent. of time saved. He cannot save more than, say, 99 per cent. of the time on the job, because when 100 per cent. is saved it means that the job is done in no time at all.
No. 1, No. 2
Suppose the time allowed is 10 hours. If it be done in 5 hours, 50 per cent. of the time has been saved, and the worker gets 50 per cent. increase of wages for the 5 hours he has worked. If the job be done in over 10 hours, day wage, say 10d. per hour, is paid for all the time taken. If done in 9 hours, 11d. per hour is paid; if in 8 hours, 1s. per hour; if in 7 hours, 13d. per hour; and so on.
The efficiency is the standard time (time allowed) divided by the time taken. If a line be plotted of efficiencies and rates-paid, the line is not a straight one, as in other cases, but a curve as shown in the diagram.
Reward rises rapidly at first, but it gets less and less as efficiency increases, which is in direct opposition to reward principles.
The method has little to recommend it except the simplicity of reckoning the reward payment.
It will be seen that the employer cannot possibly overpay the worker, no matter what his efficiency.
No. 1 is the ordinary diagram, 100 per cent. efficiency being the point where bonus begins. This point is based on an estimated time, not on a time study.
No. 2 is a diagram drawn to compare the Rowan System with the Reward System. Assuming that the worker under the Rowan System will usually earn 20 per cent. in excess of his day wages, this has been used to determine the 100 per cent. efficiency line, and the curve has been drawn as before.
The thick horizontal line marks the day rate of payment for work done. It is the same at all efficiencies, and there is no inducement whatever for a worker to increase his efficiency. Under such conditions the average worker will only do enough work to enable him to keep his job, and will resist all attempts to find out whether the work may be done more efficiently.
The straight piece work system means that the worker gets so much for each piece produced no matter how long it takes to produce it. Therefore the faster the work is done the more money is earned.
Efficiency is based on the quantity a worker ought to do in order to earn the standard rate of wages. Assuming he gets 10d. an hour, then the payment for the work done ought to equal 10d. when working at the normal rate—namely, 100 per cent. efficiency. If less than this is earned, efficiency falls below 100 per cent.; if more is earned, efficiency is over 100 per cent.
The sloping line shows the earnings per hour at different efficiencies.
There is no scientific basis on which to determine the proper time of the job, and there is great inequality in the prices of different jobs, some being easy, some very difficult. For the disadvantages of the system, see p. 6.
DAY WORK. PIECE WORK. FORD SYSTEM.
The Ford System is illustrated in the diagram on p. 108. The amount received by the worker is the same no matter what his efficiency may be, but wages are 50 per cent. higher than the standard day rate. For this reason the firm adopting this system has a far greater choice of workers than other firms, all the best labour gravitating to the firm. The worker is, of course, expected to submit to the conditions prevailing in the factory, and to do the work allotted to him in the stated time and with the degree of accuracy stipulated. Needless to say, the amount of work expected is far greater than under ordinary day work conditions.
This system has two serious disadvantages, the first being that it is of extremely limited application, and the second that it necessitates an exceptionally high degree of organisation if it is to be satisfactory.
With regard to the first point, the system depends entirely on paying wages considerably higher than the average of the district or country in which the factory is situated. This high wages inducement gives the firm the pick of the workers and holds the men to their positions. It is obvious that only one or two firms in each trade can do this. If the system became general, it would mean that wages would be increased all round and that men need no longer be afraid of being discharged. They could leave and get equally high wages elsewhere. Under such circumstances all the advantages of the system would disappear, and wages would be reduced all round until some firm began again.
Dealing with the second point, production will not be increased, or will be increased very little, if the men are left to themselves, and therefore a high degree of organisation is necessary. It means time study, planning, constant improvement in methods and machines, and all those incidentals described herein under Reward System, but with an overhanging threat of dismissal that is absent from the Reward System. The firm must have a standard product if the system is to be economically successful, and each man must do one job only and do it in the manner indicated. Team work is the essence of the system. It is quite impossible to obtain any beneficial result from the Ford System if applied to an average factory. Men cannot produce anything approaching their maximum capacity unless the work is thoroughly well organised, and waste of time, labour, and material, eliminated. And no matter how much the men desire to be worthy of the increased wages, they cannot be blamed if the organisation fails. The only incentive to high production is, of course, the threat of dismissal.
If the Ford System is to be successful, therefore—
1. The organisation must be as keen as, or even keener than, that of the Reward System.
2. The firm must have a highly specialised business.
3. Efficiency must be maintained under threat of dismissal.
4. The system must be adopted by only one or two firms in each trade.
Where these conditions prevail the system should be highly successful.
Thefollowing suggestion for a floating wage rate would prove a perpetual automatic incentive to continuously high efficiency.
It consists of a variation of, say, 6s. per week in the wage rate of every class of worker, the lowest wages in the class being the trade-union rate, and the highest wages being 6s. above the trade-union rate.
Every quarter-day each worker who reaches an average efficiency of, say, 95 per cent. or over during the previous three months for a minimum number of reward hours worked, say 500, will receive automatically an increase of 1s. per week in his wages for the next three months. If he keeps up this efficiency for eighteen months he will reach the highest wage rate.
The wages of every worker who fails to reach an average efficiency of, say, 85 per cent. during the previous three months will automatically drop 1s. per week until he is on the lowest rate.
Under these conditions a worker on the lowest rate will try to reach a higher one, and if he is on a higher rate he will always try to maintain his efficiency. A drop in efficiency means a direct loss to the worker, and the worker would probably complain of the conditions of his work. If other workers can keep up theirefficiencieson the same jobs, the complaint is groundless; while if other workers cannot keep their efficiencies, it is obvious that something is wrong, and the conditions will be investigated.
The variation of the wages being automatic, no one can complain of unfairness.
The advantage of making the change every three months instead of a longer period would mean that every worker would take a live interest in his continuous efficiency, and would not be content with a good week one week and a medium week the next. And, again, a good man who dropped down owing to unforeseen circumstances would only be down for three months, while a medium worker would always respond to the incentive, and when he reached another step up he would make great efforts not to go down again.
There would be an automatic selection of the best men, and favouritism would be reduced to almost nothing. A foreman could not prevent a man getting the increase when his efficiency proved that he had earned it, and he could not push on an inferior man because of personal friendship.
Should a high wage man leave, then he would have to come back on the lowest wage rate if he wanted to come back. This would induce men to keep their situations. Should a man be discharged, the same thing would happen. But a high wage man is of far more value to a firm than a low wage man, and he would not be discharged unless discharged permanently for some fault.
If a firm thought to lower wages by discharging all the high efficiency men, and then take them on again at a lower wage, that firm would immediately lose caste, and no high efficiency man would work there. A high efficiency man can get a job anywhere.
This floating wage rate would be quite apart from the question of reward, and the job rates for reward work would be the same for all workers no matter what their wage rate was.
BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD, ENGLAND
FOOTNOTES:[1]What is necessary in the way of food, clothes, fuel, household articles, rent, etc., in order to keep an average family in reasonable comfort can easily be determined. I have worked this out in detail, but it is hardly a subject for these notes.[2]Since writing this paragraph I have found the following statement in Mr. Graham Wallas's book, "The Great Society" (p. 347): "It is true that Morris, for all his greatness, never faced the fact that we cannot both eat our cake and have it; cannot use slow methods of production, and also turn out without overwork large quantities of consumable wealth. Once, while I listened to him lecturing, I made a rough calculation that the citizens of his commonwealth, in order to produce by the methods he advocated the quantity of beautiful and delicious things which they were to enjoy, would have to work about two hundred hours a week. It was only the same fact looked at from another point of view which made it impossible for any of Morris's workmen, or, indeed, for anyone at all whose income was near the present English average, to buy the products either of Morris's workshop at Merton or of his Kelmscott Press. There is no more pitiful tragedy than that of the many followers of Tolstoy, who, without Tolstoy's genius or inherited wealth, were slowly worn down by sheer want in the struggle to live the peasant life which he preached."
[1]What is necessary in the way of food, clothes, fuel, household articles, rent, etc., in order to keep an average family in reasonable comfort can easily be determined. I have worked this out in detail, but it is hardly a subject for these notes.
[1]What is necessary in the way of food, clothes, fuel, household articles, rent, etc., in order to keep an average family in reasonable comfort can easily be determined. I have worked this out in detail, but it is hardly a subject for these notes.
[2]Since writing this paragraph I have found the following statement in Mr. Graham Wallas's book, "The Great Society" (p. 347): "It is true that Morris, for all his greatness, never faced the fact that we cannot both eat our cake and have it; cannot use slow methods of production, and also turn out without overwork large quantities of consumable wealth. Once, while I listened to him lecturing, I made a rough calculation that the citizens of his commonwealth, in order to produce by the methods he advocated the quantity of beautiful and delicious things which they were to enjoy, would have to work about two hundred hours a week. It was only the same fact looked at from another point of view which made it impossible for any of Morris's workmen, or, indeed, for anyone at all whose income was near the present English average, to buy the products either of Morris's workshop at Merton or of his Kelmscott Press. There is no more pitiful tragedy than that of the many followers of Tolstoy, who, without Tolstoy's genius or inherited wealth, were slowly worn down by sheer want in the struggle to live the peasant life which he preached."
[2]Since writing this paragraph I have found the following statement in Mr. Graham Wallas's book, "The Great Society" (p. 347): "It is true that Morris, for all his greatness, never faced the fact that we cannot both eat our cake and have it; cannot use slow methods of production, and also turn out without overwork large quantities of consumable wealth. Once, while I listened to him lecturing, I made a rough calculation that the citizens of his commonwealth, in order to produce by the methods he advocated the quantity of beautiful and delicious things which they were to enjoy, would have to work about two hundred hours a week. It was only the same fact looked at from another point of view which made it impossible for any of Morris's workmen, or, indeed, for anyone at all whose income was near the present English average, to buy the products either of Morris's workshop at Merton or of his Kelmscott Press. There is no more pitiful tragedy than that of the many followers of Tolstoy, who, without Tolstoy's genius or inherited wealth, were slowly worn down by sheer want in the struggle to live the peasant life which he preached."
Transcriber's Note:Obvious errors were corrected.Ditto marks were replaced with the word(s) they represent for tables found on pages 25, 27, 78 and 104.Page i: Removed page (half-title page)Page ii: Removed page (blank page)Page 46: accordng changed to accordingPage 55: unbiassed changed to unbiasedPage 59: introdution changed to introductionPage 111: efficiences changed to efficiencies
Transcriber's Note:
Obvious errors were corrected.
Ditto marks were replaced with the word(s) they represent for tables found on pages 25, 27, 78 and 104.