The Myth of Protective Tariffs
An editorial critique using nationwide reports to challenge the idea that protectionist policies actually benefit the laborer.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Is there any protection for the workman of this country? Is there anything that stands between the so-called 'pauper' labor of Europe or Canada, except the price of a steerage ticket or a trip across the border? If there is any laborer who honestly believes that the manufacturers of this country are paying any more for their labor than they are absolutely compelled to do, simply because protection puts money in the pocket, let him read some of the following reports: The Brooke Iron company at Birdsboro reduced wages; the Chesapeake Nail Works reduced wages from $4 to $3.50; the Central Iron works saw massive layoffs; the Reading Rolling mill notified employees of a 10 percent reduction. Despite the promises of protectionism, the laborer finds their wages cut across the nation.
“If there is any laborer who honestly believes that the manufacturers of this country are paying any more for their labor than they are absolutely compelled to do, let him read some of the following reports.”
This piece echoes the enduring skepticism workers feel toward top-down economic theories. While the context is 19th-century trade protectionism, the suspicion toward corporate promises of 'trickle-down' prosperity remains a staple of labor discourse today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.