The money wages have, of course, appreciably changed since the date of this inquiry, but the proportions are still significant. The textile trades show the best relative wages for women, though the average rate for all textile workers is less than in the other trades, except clothing. The wages for men in the cotton trades are lower than in the engineering trades, due, to a certain extent, to the smaller number of women in engineering. Where the main industry in a district is confined very largely to men, the rate of pay for women tends to be low; hence the slender earnings of women in agricultural and smaller urban districts. The War Cabinet Committee summed up the general tendencies governing pre-war wages for men and women in the following terms:

"As a rough generalisation it would be true to say that the higher earnings of women as well as the closer approximation to the earnings of men were found in those trades which were paid on piece and in which the work done by men and women was most similar, while the low rates and the greater disparity occurred in the male occupations in which women provided only subsidiary and subordinate services, being classed in fact with boys and lads. Women get low wages when working at the bottom of industries 9

SOC. ECON.

that are mainly male, and men get high wages when working at the top of industries that are mainly female. Taking all classes together, the 1906 figures given above show the average earnings of women to have varied from a little over half those of men in the textile industries, where their work was most akin, to three-eighths in the metal industries, where it was probably most differentiated."

An unofficial estimate of the wages in 1912 gives IOS. 10 d. for women and 25s. 9d. for men.† The average woman's wage in 1914 was probably two or three shillings higher. For that year "3d. an hour may be called a normal time rate for female labour, 5d. for unskilled male labour, and 6d. or 7d. for all male labour."+

Turning from industry proper to other occupations, it is shown that in domestic service the real wages of women were slightly higher, the proportion to men's work for similar service (where comparable) being about one half. In the distributive trades, the work being more similar, the inequality of wages was rather less, the women getting two-thirds or three-quarters of the men's wage. In teaching and professional work there was the nearest approximation to equality, though even here the difference was appreciable.§

Reasons for Low Rates of Women's

A study of women's wages must have reference to artificial and traditional restrictions on their employment, which, although weakening with the progress of time, are still far from negligible. On the other hand, there are certain characteristics of female labour which make it unlikely that the remuneration will ever be as high as men's, except in those occupations for which women seem

Wages.

*War Cabinet Report, p. 67.
† Labour Year Book, 1916.

+ Report, p. 68.

§ Ibid., p. 69.

peculiarly suitable. The main causes of the low rates of payment to women may be briefly indicated.

(a) Conditions of Supply.

(i) Less physical strength. The fact that women are on the average physically weaker than men prevents them from performing arduous tasks, and helps to concentrate them in occupations of a lighter character. The difference in physical application is specially marked in those cases in which women have to distribute their energy over domestic duties as well. Female labour is not generally as regular and stable as male labour.

(ii) Insufficient training. The absence of adequate training frequently makes it impossible for women to undertake superior work. Tradition and the expectation of marriage are largely responsible for the lack of training, and a woman's application while at work is influenced to a certain degree by the knowledge that her years in the factory or office are, as a rule, of a "meantime " character. Yet the influence of possible marriage must not be overrated, for a long period of apprenticeship in the textile trades, dressmaking and millinery, etc., is not uncommon. It is the quality rather than the length of training that is insufficient; some so-called apprenticeship is merely a means of securing cheap labour.

(iii) Lack of organisation. It is indisputable that men's wages have in many cases been raised through effective organisation, and that the absence or inadequacy of women's unions is directly responsible for much of the underpayment that still exists. Here again, the incidental manner in which many women view their work presents an obstacle. A further difficulty is presented by the large number of home workers, who are in some cases almost impossible to organise. But trade unions are often handicapped because of the low wages; experience of

statutory minima has amply demonstrated that once the worker is provided with the prime necessaries of life he or she is in a better position to build up an efficient organisation and raise the wage still further.

It has been previously noted that men's unions in several cases impose restrictions, which help to drive women into. occupations in which an old-established union of male workers does not exist. Organisation of women is doubly necessary, if they are to receive fair treatment in the closed trades, and prevent the employers from taking advantage of their crowding into the other occupations. The number of women in trade unions increased from 10,000 in 1876 to 360,000 in 1914. During the war, the membership increased to over a million, though in the subsequent years of depression there was a certain falling-off.

(iv) Less mobility. While the mobility of male labour is far from perfect, it is, on the whole, easier to secure than that of female labour. Women tend to become more "settled " than men, and to be more influenced by personal and sentimental ties; their freedom to move about the country is also more restricted. This relative immobility is largely the reason why a shorthand-typist may get a much higher wage in one part of the country than in another.

(v) Lower subsistence and fewer dependants. It is true that the average working woman spends less on means of sustenance than the average working man. But it is equally true that the difference in their expenditure does not measure the difference in their needs. The popular conception that the woman requires less is mainly attributable to the fact that she has been compelled by circumstances to do with less. And when one considers the amenities of life which are more necessary" to women than to men, the difference between the respective standards of comfort becomes very small. Also, though the average

male bread winner has more dependants, the number of women who have only themselves to keep tends to be magnified; the percentage of women with aged parents and others to maintain is higher than often supposed.*

But, in any case, as was shown in the discussion as to the theoretical determination of wages, it is productivity

* There is considerable difference of opinion as to the actual extent of women's responsibility for dependants. In 1919, Mr. Seebohm Rowntree and Mr. F. D. Stuart made an inquiry into the question, investigating conditions in eleven towns. The following table, taken from The Responsibility of Women Workers for Dependants (1921), shows their conclusions.

With special reference to adult dependants, the results work out at an average of 0.17 of an adult dependant per working woman. On the other hand, the inquiry of the Fabian Women's Group showed that 51.13 per cent. of the women workers had dependants, each woman supporting on the average 1.75 of an adult. The dissimilarity of the results is doubtless due to the different standards taken and to the different methods of inquiry and calculation. Further, both investigations were limited in scope and area, and a more comprehensive survey is necessary before satisfactory results can be obtained.