The Principles of Economics Part 36

[Sidenote: The ideal of social service]

Does the world owe each man a living? No; on the contrary, each man owes the world his services in exchange for his living. The pauperism of spirit that consists in taking something for nothing is found in every rank of society that enjoys the blessings of progress without giving its best services in return. The ideal of a better adjustment of reward and service grows in the minds of men. Social evolution, shaped by this changing ideal and by acc.u.mulating experience, will bring into closer relation the social services and the economic rewards of men.

CHAPTER 40

WASTE AND LUXURY

-- I. WASTE OF WEALTH

[Sidenote: Loss of wealth in an isolated or an exchanging economy]

1. _The accidental destruction of wealth is a loss to the owner, rarely with benefit, on the whole, to others._ In the consumption of wealth the loss of its utility is accompanied by the gratifying of wants; in the destruction of wealth utility is lost without the gratifying of wants.

In a simple society, without exchange, the result of such a loss is evident. If food is destroyed, men suffer from hunger or gratify appet.i.te less perfectly; if clothing is destroyed, they are cold; if houses are destroyed, they have no shelter. Likewise, if the self-sufficing family on a farm loses wealth by fire or storm or blight, its economic environment is made less fitted to gratify wants. In the conditions of our society, where goods are exchanged, the result appears to be different. The need to replace the lost goods makes a demand for special kinds of labor or goods. There may be, therefore, an immediate benefit to some, which obscures the corresponding loss to others. If a part of the income of the loser must be diverted from other uses to replace the wealth destroyed, those from whom he would have bought suffer an unexpected falling off of their sales, and he has himself gained nothing. The net result is a loss of wealth and gratification to the community as a whole.

There is a real exception where the accidental destruction removes some social difficulty. The great fire in London and the great fire in Chicago resulted in wonderful improvement. When an old city is built almost entirely of wood, each owner may think it to his interest to keep the old buildings. A great fire sweeps them all down and compels the rebuilding of the city on a new and higher standard. But the usual social result of accidental destruction is a loss. It is a use of wealth without a fulfilling of the purpose of production, the gratifying of wants.

[Sidenote: Intentional destruction of wealth by the owner]

2. _The intentional destruction of wealth by the owner, to make trade good, benefits neither himself nor others._ The case in mind is one where there is full choice between keeping or losing the good, not such a case as the throwing overboard of a part of the cargo when the s.h.i.+p is in danger of sinking, in the hope thereby of saving the rest, or as the blowing up of buildings to prevent the spread of a fire. In such cases the destruction is inevitable without man's action; he merely tries to minimize it. The case in mind is the deliberate destruction of wealth that might be kept for use. One labor leader, for example, boasted that when he drank pop he always broke the bottle "to make trade good" by helping the gla.s.s industry. The refuting of this fallacy is one of the time-honored tasks in political economy. There is, it is true, an increase in the demand for gla.s.s and gla.s.s-blowers' labor, but without an increase in gratification; but at the same time there is a decrease in the demand for other goods which would afford additional gratification. The proverb, old in Shakespeare's time, runs, "Nothing can come of nothing." What is spent for one purpose cannot be for another; "you cannot eat your cake and have it too." A given income can be spent in one of many ways, but not in all ways or even in two ways at once. It is a question of this _or_ that. At the same moment that the demand for pop-bottles is increased, the demand for other things is decreased, possibly that for pop-corn or pop-guns or Populist papers--who can tell? Such a form of benevolence is a mistaken, uneconomic attempt to provide labor for one man by taking it from another.

If the advocate of wealth-destruction would be consistent, he should break, not merely the pop-bottle, but the water-pitcher and the table as well; he should make a bonfire at least once daily of his clothing, his house, and its furnis.h.i.+ngs; he should advise blowing up the steamboat and ripping up the railroad when they have carried a single load of pa.s.sengers. Thus, when all men were naked and starving, and civilization had sunk to savagery, trade would have been made as "good" as, by the policy of destruction, he could ever hope to make it.

[Sidenote: Intentional destruction of others' wealth]

3. _The intentional destruction of wealth owned by other persons is falsely thought to benefit trade in general._ The cases referred to are not acts done with criminal motives, but those done with a view to the public interest. If one sets fire to the property of another, seeking revenge or plunder, he is guilty of the crime of arson. But what shall be said of volunteer firemen that let an old house burn down to provide labor for carpenters and "to make business good"? The duty of firemen is to put out fires, no matter what the building is; but they choose sometimes to be ministers to the social interest as they interpret it.

The more spent for carpenters' work out of any income, the less can be spent for other objects. It is true, however, that if in a small town the money to rebuild is borrowed from a distant loan or insurance company, there is an increase in employment in that town for one season; and that is as far as most men try to carry their economic a.n.a.lysis. Let the student carry it further.

[Sidenote: The seen and the unseen]

Servants sometimes excuse the breaking of dishes and furniture on the ground that it makes work, and that the employer can afford it. But income is thus diverted from other expenditure, either for production or for consumption. In the light of the theory of wages, it would appear that carelessness reduces the servant's own efficiency, and in the long run the loss comes, in part at least, off the wages of that particular servant. Bastiat's discussion of the broken window-pane is often and deservedly quoted. What is seen is a certain immediate benefit that the gla.s.s-maker and glazier get; what is not seen is that the power to expend an equal amount for other things is thereby lost by the owner of the house.

[Sidenote: The wasteful use of wealth]

4. _The destruction of unnecessarily large value to secure a given gratification is not economically sound._ The careless use of wealth to secure an inadequate result is likewise justified as "making trade good." The blunder that compels the rebuilding of a wall in a rich man's garden is an occasion for congratulation to those who see in it a happy provision of work for the unemployed. It is easy to forget that the proper use of goods is the final step in production. According as goods are well or poorly used, the production--that is, the real income or gratification they afford--is large or small. Differences in skill in the use of wealth are great. A French cook, we are often told, can make a palatable soup from what goes from the average American kitchen into the swill-pail. Waste in the use of goods is more likely to be found in new countries where wealth comes more easily and necessity does not enforce frugality.

The praise of waste implies the error noted in the preceding propositions. Deliberately securing less than the maximum result from wealth is merely a minor degree of the intentional destruction of wealth. The mistaken view is essentially that of the opponents of labor-saving machinery. It may be true, if the interests of a small cla.s.s of workers or of tradesmen for the moment are looked at; it is false, if the interests of society as a whole be considered. Far more of wisdom lies in the proverb, "A penny saved is two earned." The economic use of wealth as surely adds to wealth (and, ultimately, to the income of society) as any other mode of production.

[Sidenote: Waste in public outlay]

Some government expenditures, as for river and harbor improvements, are sometimes favored, not because their immediate purposes are good, but because they "make work" and "distribute money" throughout the country.

This money comes from taxation, and no matter what the system of taxation, the burden falls on some one, reducing the incomes at the disposal of the people to expend for objects of their own choice. If the work is not worth doing for itself, the collection of money in small amounts from many taxpayers and its expenditure as a large sum in one locality results in a net loss to society as a whole. Where the result is worth something, but not enough by itself to justify the expenditure, the fallacy of the destruction of wealth is present in a smaller degree.

Examples are seen in the extreme use of pensions and in some public subsidies.

[Sidenote: The fallacy of waste]

5. _The supposed benefits of destruction and waste are due to a narrow and incomplete view of the question._ Let us restate the ideas that have been touched upon. In many cases it is possible that one person may benefit by another's mishap or folly in the use of wealth. The complex interrelations of men in society make this inevitable. But, to appreciate the final effects of such action upon society, one needs but to go back to the essential thought of wealth and its purposes. As the average efficiency and bounty of the world fall, so fall the income and welfare of men. As it rises, the social and economic levels rise also.

Every kind of economic wealth has potentially two kinds of uses: to gratify wants--thus fulfilling its destiny--or to be converted into higher and more efficient agents--consumption or production. That the possibilities of the latter are boundless is overlooked in the fallacies here criticized. An efficient world would be the result of "economy" and saving; a wasted and used-up world, the result of the fallacy of the destruction and waste of wealth.

-- II. LUXURY

[Sidenote: Luxury defined]

1. _Luxury, while variously defined, involves always the thought of great consumption of wealth for unessential pleasures._ It is not possible to define luxury absolutely; it is a relative term. Those opposed to it condemn it in their definition of it, as, for example: "an excessive consumption of wealth," or "devoting a relatively large amount of wealth to the satisfaction of a relatively superfluous want." Those who take a more moderate and favorable view say: "It is the enjoyment of forms of wealth not obtainable by the ma.s.s of men." The difficulty in the definition as well as in the problem of luxury is that it involves a mixture of economic and of ethical questions.

[Sidenote: Extravagance "to give employment"]

2. _Luxury is erroneously justified by some as giving employment to labor._ Typical instances are extravagant dress and elaborate b.a.l.l.s where fine and costly flowers, decorations, music, coaches, require the expenditure of a large amount of money. It is said of the Empress Eugenie, wife of Napoleon III, that, in order to help the glove industry of France, she wore no pair of gloves more than once; in order to help other French industries, she purchased many silks and laces. It is a very comfortable doctrine to some people that the oftener they change their dress, the greater benefactors to society they are. A few years ago the "Bradley-Martin ball" was given in New York city. It was possibly little more elaborate and expensive than many another ball, but it chanced to be a dull time for news and the papers all over the land gave columns to its discussion. In the many interviews with ministers and business men, the thought appeared over and over that the ball had at least the merit of giving employment to labor.

[Sidenote: The fallacy of luxury]

The fallacy of this is essentially the same as that in the argument for waste and destruction. From the fact that these particular tailors, musicians, and florists would have less employment if this ball were not given, it is falsely concluded that, but for this ball, this particular income, or capital, would not be used at all. The average of employment in those special industries which minister to luxury is the result of and is determined by the average level of demand. There are more caterers and florists in Ithaca than in Hayt's Corners. A more than ordinarily gay season gives unusual profits to these enterprises, and it is true that an abrupt and extreme falling off in demand would cause them large losses, and leave many workers lacking employment for that one season. But, if this limited demand became usual, capital and labor would s.h.i.+ft to the other industries to which expenditure had s.h.i.+fted.

Other modes of expenditure than twenty-five thousand-dollar b.a.l.l.s are possible, as, for example, twenty-five thousand-dollar public libraries.

Mr. Carnegie takes his dissipation in that form. That gives employment also; not less does investment in new houses, in new railroads, and in new factories. More employment of a particular kind of labor is caused in one case than in another, but not more employment of labor as a whole and on the average.

[Sidenote: Results of a sudden change in standards of living]

3. _If all extreme luxury ceased, men of means would improve durable agents more or would give more or would take more leisure while producing less._ The question of luxury is most difficult when put thus: What would happen if everybody began suddenly to live on the simplest food and to confine himself to the bare necessities of life? A sudden change of this sort is almost unthinkable, but if it took place, all the factories and agents used for non-essentials would lose their value at once. A great industrial crisis would follow, as industry would have to adjust itself abruptly to an unprecedented standard of desires. What would happen if that standard continued would vary as human nature varies. There might follow increase of population, or a heightening of the efficiency of such agents as were of use, or, more probable than all else, a progressive lightening of labor, a use of the surplus of energy in study, rest, and recreation. It is, of course, illogical to suppose that with limited desires for the objective goods of the world there would continue undiminished efforts to produce goods and to save for future superfluities. In actual life changes of standard occur gradually. Economizing in material things by simpler living makes possible not only the increased efficiency of productive agents but the increased enjoyment of immaterial goods.

[Sidenote: Luxury as an incentive to progress]

4. _The defenders of luxury claim that it is the great incentive to progress._ It is undoubtedly true that a dead level of conditions is unfavorable to the progress of society. There must be in society some motive for emulation and ambition after the bare necessities of life are provided. There is therefore much strength in the defense of luxury.

Necessities, strictly understood, are things absolutely essential to life and health. No hard line can be drawn between necessities and comforts, between comforts and luxuries. The level rises; it is a trite and true saying that the luxuries of one age become the necessities of the next. The rise of the bath-tub in the nineteenth century is an epitome of the progress of civilization in that period. The free baths in our cities surpa.s.s the hopes of the wealthy of a century ago. Even the meaner motives of envy may have their social function. The lower social grades, emulous of the higher standard held before them, labor with greater energy. The successful and capable, not content with necessities, continue to give their efforts to production. The destruction of the motive of luxury before the development of a subst.i.tute in a higher social conscience, would be paralyzing to industry. Luxury in a moderate measure may be defended by the same arguments as those for private property. True as this view may be in many cases, in others it seems directly opposed to the facts. Let us look at the economico-moral questions involved from the side of the individual who is indulging in luxury, and from that of the society in which he lives.

[Sidenote: Happiness and the simple life]

5. _As a question of consumption luxury involves for the individual both an economic and a moral problem._ The economic question is, Does luxury enhance the man's real income? Does a greater expenditure on himself give him a larger sum of gratification in life than a moderate expenditure would give? Ostentation has its penalties. Undue striving after effect defeats its own purpose. This is the cold fact of experience, not a speculative proposition. To get back to the fundamental principle: gratification results from a harmonious relation between man's nature and the world. Life loaded with too much luggage staggers under the burden. The tired faculties of the Sybarite cease at length to respond to natural pleasures. When the senses are robbed of their fineness, youth grows blase, mature manhood is ennuied, life is empty. The praise of "the simple life" has lately been heard in a quarter whence such counsel does not usually come. In gay Paris, a wise pastor has made one of the most beautiful and rational pleas for plain and sincere living that society has heard since the time of the stoic philosophers. The word is needed. With the growth of incomes grows the strain to reach the self-imposed standards of frivolity. Insanity and suicide are on the increase. The stress of modern life makes men yearn for the simpler joys. Happiness dwells not outside of men; they must seek it within.

[Sidenote: Luxury vs. social welfare]

An economic failure, luxury is likewise in most cases a moral failure.

Morality has to do with others; the social aspect of luxury is its effect on other people. The mere spending of a large income in selfish indulgence absorbs all the energies and interests of some men and women.

Not only happiness in the narrow sense, but self-realization, is to such lives impossible. Those absorbed in display can give no due measure of thought to social obligations. A society made up of self-absorbed and self-centered individuals is a selfish society, foredoomed to decay.

[Sidenote: Luxury generally condemned]

6. _The larger moral problem involved in luxury is connected with distribution or the justice of the income, rather than with consumption or the spending of the income._ The individual effects of luxury broaden thus into the larger social effects. Most of the enemies of luxury condemn all expenditure of wealth above a very moderate sum, declaring that it is "unjust" for one man to have much while others are in poverty. This communistic doctrine pervades the teaching of many moral teachers, pagan and Christian. In many ways a public opinion can be developed to disapprove and condemn ostentation. Frivolous display becomes bad taste. Flaunting riches meet the public frown. The spending of income for dress and display has never been successfully forbidden by law. The Middle Ages are full of futile sumptuary laws which sprang from the envy of the n.o.bles for the wealthy merchants. The growth of good taste may do what formal law found impossible.

[Sidenote: Increasing social uses of wealth]

The use of wealth in these days is taking more social directions. It turns from dress toward education, art, music, and travel; then ceases to be applied merely to self and family, and benefits the community.

Nowhere and never before has this movement gone so far as in America.

Andrew Carnegie, with his gifts of millions annually to public libraries; Peter Cooper, founder of the People's Inst.i.tute; Ezra Cornell, the patron and prophet of the modern type of higher education--are citizens of a kind better known in this country than in any other.