In this connection, only one category of people calls for consideration. They are the economically effective. It is the duty of the State, in the interest of its economy, to pursue a policy which will make it possible for all those who engage effectively in productive activities to be in a fit physical, mental, and psychological state to give of their best.
Anyone, who has given any thought to the matter at all, will agree to the indispensability and supremacy of labour, of all kinds and gradations, in production. And it must be thought strange, to such a person, what scant attention is paid to the fitness of the workers in Nigeria and, for that matter, in all other underdeveloped countries. When making plans for any productive enterprise, every care is taken by the promoters to secure the most modern tools and instruments of production. Every tool, however insignificant, even the smallest bolt in a machine, is deemed to be of great importance, and meticulous care is taken to make sure that it has no defect whatsoever. But little attention, if any, is ever paid to the fitness of the men and women who are employed to use the tools and operate the machines for the purpose of efficient and effective production. The only exceptions are the high executives and administrators. The lower grades of workers are completely overlooked and ignored.
In the people’s republic of Nigeria, the lowest grade of workers should be treated with the same human consideration as the highest executives and administrators. We are all labourers in the State – each indispensable and supreme in his own sphere, and all of us performing mutually complementary services.
For all these reasons, a national minimum wage, sufficient to guarantee to the lowest unskilled worker a minimum standard of living which will enable him to give of his best in his own sphere, and keep him reasonably happy and contented, must be determined and declared.
In determining a national minimum wage, a scientific approach must be adopted. A team of experts should be assembled to assess and cost the feeding, housing, and clothing needs of an able-bodied worker. Hitherto, the’ emphasis has been on the quantum of food, housing and clothing. Henceforth, the emphasis should be on quality as well; especially, as it is scientifically possible to quantify and cost this seemingly intangible attribute. (See P: 59).
It must be emphasized that the economic purpose of a national minimum wage is to give to the worker a powerful incentive to higher productivity which would match-if not more than match-the new level of remuneration. It would be the duty of the planners in the people’s republic of Nigeria to ensure that this is the case, in order to avoid a cost inflation of an intractable character.
Thirdly, having ascertained the number of unemployed and underemployed persons, and having determined the minimum national standard of living for the fully employed’ persons, the Government must see to it that enough investment is created, from time to time, to maintain full employment at the level of the declared minimum standard of living or national minimum wage.
In this connection, the views of Keynes and Beveridge are again apposite. In The General Theory, Keynes insists that the size of the aggregate income of any community depends on the size of its investment which in turn depends on the quantum of its saving. Income increases as investment increases. Similarly, the aggregate quantum of consumption and saving depends on the size of the aggregate income.
But beyond certain level of income, the amount spent on consumption increases less proportionately than increase in income. Therefore, granting an equitable distribution of the aggregate income, it follows that the greater the aggregate investment in any community, the larger the income of the individual worker, the more effective is his demand for consumable goods, and the greater is his ability to save and contribute to further investment.
In Full Employment in a Free Society, Beveridge says the same thing in different terms. At p. 147 of the book, he lays down’ three rules of finance’ in a state of full employment.
(1)‘Total outlay at all times must be sufficient for full employment. This is a categorical imperative taking precedence over all other rules and overriding them if they are in conflict with it.
(2)‘Subject to this overriding categorical imperative, outlay should be directed by regard to social priorities.
(3)‘Subject both to the first and second rules, it is better to provide the means for outlay by taxing than by borrowing.’
At this juncture, it is the first rule with which we are concerned; we shall refer to the other two later.
Beveridge regards the first rule as absolute; and affirms Keynes’s view that ‘in a community suffering from deficient demand,’ that is from unemployment and underemployment, it is better to employ people on useless projects like’ pyramid building, or digging holes and filling them up again, than not to employ them at all.’ ‘In default of a better policy directed to the production of useful things,’ Beveridge continues, ‘any of these may be better than doing nothing at all. Those who are taken into useless employment will, by what they earn and spend, give useful employment to others. It is better to employ people, however the money for paying their wages is obtained, than not to employ them at all; enforced idleness is a waste of real resources and a waste of lives, which can never be made good, and which cannot be defended on any financial ground.’
I am perfectly in, agreement with the views of these two great economists, which are shared by all thoughtful economists and all right-thinking policy-makers, ever since they were expressed.
It follows, therefore, that, in this connection, there are two paramount and overriding categorical imperatives which I am advocating for the people’s republic of Nigeria: the adoption of a policy of full employment, and the provision, from time to time, of sufficient investment to maintain this policy.
The strict observance of these two categorical imperatives, which we enjoin, raises the very important question of finding the funds to provide the requisite investment. In the third of its three rules of finance, Beveridge prefers raising the funds required by taxation rather than by borrowing. He has two reasons for his preference.
CONTINUES NEXT WEEK
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then