636 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL the truth of either of these descriptions, and indeed, without in the least believing in their rivalry, I desire to present the follow- ing pages, as neither an inductive nor a deductive study, and in fact, as nothing more than a preliminary survey of the field for investi- gation. No one knows better than myself how insn?ficient would be this heterogeneous collection of facts to warrant any valid induction, even if it were by inductions of .this order that useful economic generalisations were? reached. W?omen's work may be classec] as (1) manual, (2) routine mental, (3) artistic, or (4) intellectual. These are, in the main, ? non-competing groups.' (a) Time Wages. Women engaged in manual labour normally earn less than 'mer? in similar occupations. ' A lass aye gets less than a man' ?ontentedJy. remarked an Edinburgh factory girl when questioned on the subject. Nor are statistics wanting to give definiteness to 'the popular view. The inquiry made by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor in 1884, into the wages paid in the twenty-four principal manufacturing industries in Great Britain and Massachusetts respectively, yields the following result bearing on this point: ' RELATIVE EARNINGS OF MEN ?ND WOMEN IN 1883. Average of 17,430 emp/oy?s, in 110 establishments, in Great Brita. in, o/nd 35,902 employes, in 210 establishments in Massachusetts, representing in both cases, 24 different manufacturing industries. GREAT Barran?. Men. ? $ ct. Average highest weekly wage 11'86 Average lowest weekly wage Average weekly wage. Women. $ ct. 4'10 Per cent. of Men's. 86 ?SSACHUSETTSo ' Per cent. Men. Women. of Men's. $ ct. $ct. I 25'41 8'57 ? 4'72 8'26 2'27 48 8'87 41 11'85 4'6? { 6'09 t 51 ? Statistics rearranged from the Sixteenth Report of Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of .Labor, 1885.
