habits to be the result of their economic and social surroundings; but if one were studying human sharks, one might reach just the opposite conclusion. As a matter of fact, those are the conclusions, in general, which students actually reach who study two different types of people. When we study considerable numbers of the unfortunate people who have not succeeded in life, or who are more or less complete failures, we generally attribute their failures to bad surroundings or unfortunate circumstances. When we study men who have made conspicuous successes, we are likely to attribute their successes to their own sterling qualities. It would be impossible to say whether the circumstances under which the former class grew up were better or worse than those under which the latter class grew up. In fact, many of our greatest men and women came out of the worst conditions.

The unemployed. If we begin with the involuntarily idle, that is, the unemployed, as given in the outline on page 64, we shall find that many of them are the victims of circumstances which they lacked the strength to combat successfully. Frequently the hostile circumstances have been such as no one could stand against. In these cases no moral problem is involved. They are entitled to all the sympathy and aid which society can give them. In other cases it was their own weakness or their own injurious habits which made them unemployable. There is no doubt that better moral and religious teaching would have given them a moral brace and helped them to succeed. At any rate, the fact that they are now idle means that they are going to waste and are a drain upon, rather than a contribution to, the national prosperity, power, and greatness. Anything which can be done for future generations to reduce the number of such unemployed people will be a definite contribution to the strength of the nation. More moral vigor, sounder habits, and better training are apparently needed for our economic prosperity, as well as for purely moral or religious reasons.

The leisure class. When we come to deal with the voluntarily idle, that is, with the leisure class, we are on more certain ground. It is in no sense their misfortune, it is their fault, that they are idle. The fact that they are voluntarily rather than involuntarily idle implies that they could do something useful if they chose, but they do not choose to do so. It is not opportunity which they need; it is moral regeneration. We must be careful, however, not to confuse the person who does not have to earn his living with the person who is idle. Many persons of independent means are doing work of the very highest utility to the nation and to the world. Scientific investigation, experimentation, and invention, historical and literary study, agricultural and mechanical demonstration, political reform, and philanthropy, have all been promoted by men and women who could afford to give their time to such things. The leisure class, properly so called, includes only those who do little or nothing that is useful or productive, but give themselves over to mere self-enjoyment or selfcultivation. Self-cultivation as preparation for useful work is itself, of course, useful; but without some useful object in view, that is, without a view to making one's self a contributor to the national prosperity and well-being, it is useless. The person who spends his time in this kind of self-cultivation is going to waste as truly as though he were spending his time in eating, drinking, and acquiring adipose tissue, gout, or diabetes.

Whoever belongs to the leisure class as thus defined is a drain upon the wealth and prosperity of the nation. The nation is better off every time such a person leaves the world. Since he does nothing useful, nothing is lost when he ceases to exist. When he ceases consuming, his food and clothing at least are saved. His wealth, of course, remains behind even after he is gone. He came into the world naked, and when he leaves the world he takes nothing with him. The more such people there are in the nation in proportion to the

workers the worse it is for the nation in the long run. The fewer such people there are, that is, the larger the proportion of workers, the better off the nation will be in the long run. The whole nation has to be supported by the labor of those who work. If all the people work, the task is lightened, or else the people live better. If only a part of them work, the burden upon the workers is either heavier or else there is less produced and consequently less wealth.

Do idle consumers make a market for producers? It is sometimes argued, however, that a large number of consumers who are not themselves producers is necessary to make a market for the producers. An appearance of reasonableness is given to this argument by taking the case of a single product, say potatoes, though any other product would do equally well. It is undoubtedly a good thing for the potato growers to have a large number of consumers of potatoes who are not themselves growers of potatoes, provided the consumers have something to give in exchange for potatoes. If the would-be consumers of potatoes do not have something to give in exchange, the growers will gain nothing from them. The more the consumers have which can be given in exchange, the more profitable it is likely to be for the potato growers. If the consumers of potatoes are living on accumulated wealth, they will have less to give in exchange than they would have if, in addition to their accumulated wealth, they were also producing or earning something. The more workers there are in other productive fields besides potato growing, the more other things there will be to be given in exchange for potatoes. This is a statement which can be repeated with respect to each and every industry or occupation, which merely brings us back to the general statement that the more workers and the fewer idlers there are in any nation, the more abundant will goods of all kinds become, and the more rapidly will the nation advance in prosperity and power. Overproduction of everything is an impossibility.

Some are willing to grant, however, that it would be better economically if everyone would work than it would be if some wasted their time in idleness. After admitting this, it will be asked, nevertheless, Has not a man a right to remain idle if he has accumulated enough to support himself without further work? Assuming that he has earned his accumulation and has not secured it by inheriting it, by marrying it, or by a fortunate speculation in land, there is something to be said for this contention. But he who does less well than he can, does ill. One who is still capable of doing useful work, and chooses not to do it, is certainly doing less well for his country than he might, even though he did well when he accumulated wealth.

Should men be allowed to accumulate wealth? But why rely upon morals and religion to prevent this form of waste or ill-doing? Why not prevent men from living in idleness by forbidding them to accumulate wealth or by taking it away from them by law if they do so? Here is a dilemma which no kind of compulsion can remove. If men are not allowed to accumulate wealth, they will then be encouraged to consume their incomes as they go along. Wasteful or luxurious consumption is quite as wasteful as idleness. Here, then, is the dilemma. If men whose incomes are larger than is necessary to support them and their families in that degree of comfort which will maintain their efficiency at its maximum are not allowed to accumulate, they will consume more than is necessary; that is, they will consume wastefully. If they are allowed to accumulate a part of their incomes, some of them will be able to accumulate so much that either they or their children may live without work. It is deemed better and more economical to allow them to accumulate, and then appeal to them on moral and religious grounds not to waste their lives in idleness or useless self amusement, but to use both their time and their wealth productively, than to take away their accumulations and thus encourage them to consume wastefully.

Let us assume, by way of illustration, that two men, A and B, have equal incomes, and that their incomes are more than sufficient to maintain them and their families in efficient comfort. A consumes his entire income and never accumulates anything, while B consumes only a part of his income, investing the remainder in productive enterprises of various kinds. The overconsumption of A and his family accomplishes nothing. What they consume over and above that which is necessary for efficient comfort is wasted as far as the rest of the country is concerned, and might just as well have been burned or thrown into the sea if that would have given them any amusement or satisfaction. B's surplus, however, has gone into the expansion of industries and the increase of the productive power of the country. Up to this point B has done much better than A. Now let us assume that after a period of years B decides that he has worked long enough, and that he will spend the rest of his life in sheer idleness or selfamusement. A, having accumulated nothing, cannot retire, but is compelled to go on working as long as he is able. From this point on, A is doing better than B. During their whole lives it is difficult to say which does the better, but the odds are slightly in favor of B. If, however, B can be persuaded not to remain idle, but to continue doing something useful, even if he does give up his earlier business, the advantage is decidedly with B.

The kind of talent that goes to waste. There is one aspect of the problem of the leisure class which makes it especially important. That is the quality of the people of whom it is made up. If this class were made up of the ignorant, the weak, and the incompetent, the loss would not be so great. That part of the leisure class which is commonly referred to as the tramp, or hobo, class may be thus described. There is a certain amount of waste involved here; but as long as they do not become a positive nuisance by their lawlessness and vagrancy, the waste is not so very great. Even if they