Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/932

896 896 HARVARD LAW REVIEW living wage is necessarily affected by variations in national eflS- ciency. The court is under a legal duty to award the living wage; but in the discharge of this duty, it is necessarily conditioned by some reference, however imperfect, to the very difScult but ex- tremely important question of what at a given time the community can afford to pay, without suffering a catastrophic increase in the price of commodities out of which wages are ultimately paid. It will be apparent that a marked disturbance of the general level of prices, and consequent trade and industrial dislocations are greatly increased if, on the increase of the living wage with a view to future cases, the new standard is immediately applied to all existing awards. The remarks just made with regard to the precise significance of the living wage, and the results of its revision, must be cu- mulatively considered. With regard to the danger of industrial dislocation, I do not feel that it is generally recognized amongst em- ployees how grave might be the consequence if, apart from statu- tory direction, the court were to assume the responsibility of the view that, as far as it legally could, it should throw all existing awards into the melting pot. The efficient functioning of industry, so essential to the welfare of both employers and employees, is so dependent upon considerations of credit and finance, and upon the need for a reasonable certainty as to the future, that if employers are never able to know, or with reasonable foresight anticipate,, whether a legally binding award is to be altered or not, trade and industry may be depressed, and initiative discouraged to the verge of extinction. I am quite aware that even at present employers manage to survive, and often jjbrive, despite the risk of supply and demand of labor operating unfavorably to them. Although em- ployers may not pay less than the legally binding wage, they may be bound to pay more if labor is scarce. But this risk is not an adequate reason for imposing the additional risk of having legal obligations abruptly altered from time to time, not according to statutory direction, but according to the particular views and out- look of an industrial judge, as to what ought to be the living wage. I doubt, moreover, whether employees who argue in favor of the immediate adjustments of all existing awards according to variations in the standard of the living wage quite realize that the argmnent cuts both ways. It is to be hoped that in the near future the cost