Salt Lake Telegram | 1937-11-23 | Page 6 | The British Method

The British Method THE prominence into which housing has been thrown in recent weeks as a main reliance in stimulating industries producing durable goods, spreading the gains through, the entire business structure, building new purchasing power and thereby helping the consumer goods industries and transferring workers from government gov-ernment pay rolls to private Jobs, stirred high hopes at first Then a great variety of critics arose to say that the plan would not work. They didn't take the time to point out what would work. That though, seems to be the norm for most critics. Back of all that was the notion that government govern-ment liOUmgrograrnserel6go-6uTan4 prP vate financing with tolerable interest rates was to come in. Building materials costs were to move downward and building labor costs were to come within reach of the "average man." This was predicated on labor's trading high wages for a guaranteed annual income. This, fnrleod han hosm TmrAA mm m hlifh nhsfnlji race a little stiff as a means of halting the business busi-ness recession. Besides, not before spring could there be any marked effect and six months is long time to wait. England seems to have managed Just such housing plan. Preston Grover, a leading news behind the news columnist in Washington, writes about some of the things coming out while John Laing, a big figure in the British construction industry, was visiting in this country, looking into labor and industrial matters. mat-ters. Grover was impressed to write that Laing'f comment "prompted some new thinking oyer here." . British building labor, Laing said, received wage increases from time to time a prosperity began its return Jthere a few years ago. Ulti- mately, however, a change in the method of . making the increases developed. Instead of Increasing the hourly wage with resultant increase in building costs, working men were given assurance of steadier work during the year which would give them an annual income equal to what an hourly wage increase would have brought them. The result was that the workmen were kept busy over longer period each year. They built more houses, and the houses cost less and thus were more easily sold. Laing said British house builders were employed em-ployed 48 to BO weeks a year. In America, some of his auditors estimated, house builders were t work not more than 30 weeks a year on the average. The resulting deduction is that American Amer-ican house builders produce only 30 weeks worth of work for their annual income, and house costs are comparably higher. Laing estimated that the unit cost of a house In England Eng-land had been reduced 30 per cent by the new method of calculating wages on an annual basis Instead of an hourly basis. Of course, as Grover points out the working man is paid a lower rate per hour for 48 to SO weeks of work than he would be paid if he earned the same annual income in 30 weeks. But the lower cost of building houses has been a Ipur to British industry for some time. It would require a hardy public official to eome out with a recommendation that labor accept shading of hourly pay in return for a promise of longer work each year, even if he could predict with some assurance that the annual income would be the same or higher.