Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 8.djvu/694

 674 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

hours. Subtracting from 630 hours the 233 hours required in the common dining-room, we have 397 hours, almost 400, saved each day by the co-operative method. This is equal to a saving of 63^ per cent., and to the work of forty-four per- sons working nine hours per day.

There was a small cash income from the blacksmithy, as work was done for outsiders. The machine shop sometimes did a little work for neighboring mills for cash. The doctor earned some money from professional visits to outsiders, which was turned over to the colony. No charge was made to colonists for the doctor's services. There is said to be some advantage in having a colony doctor, as he has no incentive to keep his patients sick for the sake of fees. His interest lies in getting them well as quickly as possible. The photograph gallery did considerable custom work for cash. Colonists got rates reduced to cost, and paid in colony scrip or in cash, as they preferred. The store did considerable business, but the greater part of its sales were for hour checks, and no profit was made on these sales. Another part of its business was barter with the neigh- boring farmers for butter and eggs. This produce was all consumed by the colony, and the bartering at the store was therefore only a cheaper way of buying this produce. This was a profit, but not a cash profit. It encouraged the bad habit of consuming admission fees, for the goods bartered away had been paid for in cash which had usually been obtained from the sale of stock. A third portion was sold for cash to outsiders and to members. On that which was sold to members no profit was made, but sales to outsiders yielded a profit. These outsiders were southern farmers, a class of people with a low standard of living ; hence these cash sales were small, and the store could not be called a money-making enterprise. Its chief utility lay in providing goods to members at wholesale rates.

The farming, as was said before, was badly managed, and it would therefore be unfair to compare it with farming under the competitive system, which is well managed. The merits or demerits of co-operation could not be determined in that way.