Indeed, if justice were strictly administered, it is even possible
that among a few groups poverty would increase, since some individuals
are incapable of really earning the wages they now receive.

Something more than justice, therefore, is necessary. We must not only
see that a man gets as much as he produces, no more, no less, but we
must make it possible for every individual actually to produce or earn
enough to support himself decently or comfortably. This, in essence,
is the distinction between the socialist and the liberalist, _i.e._ he
who accepts the democratic program of industrial reform: the socialist
would practice injustice and invite economic ruin in a vain effort to
eliminate poverty; the liberalist seeks the abolition of poverty
without violating either justice or economic law.

172. WHY WAGES ARE LOW.--A little thought will show that directly or
indirectly poverty is sometimes the result of low wages. It follows,
thus, that the source of some poverty would be dried up if an increase
in wages could be secured in an economical manner. To come to the
heart of the problem, wages are low because productivity is low. That
is to say, employers operating under conditions of free competition
will pay laborers in proportion as the latter give promise of adding
to the value of the product. When men are scarce, relatively to the
supply of land and capital, the employer will be justified in offering
high wages, because under those circumstances the productivity of each
of his prospective employees will be high. He will actually offer high
wages, because if he does not, the laborers will tend to hire out to
his competitors. But if laborers are plentiful, relatively to the
supply of the other factors of production, the employer will be forced
to offer lower wages, because under the circumstances each of the
prospective employees shows promise of being able to add relatively