gnized, for
example, in the case of the living wage legislation for agriculture in
England; and thus instead of applying one standard wage throughout all
districts, standardization was carried out by districts.[87] Even in
this case, however, the various district advisory boards are under a
strong and constant pressure (under the terms of the act) to bring the
rates in the various districts to the same level. Such, also, to take
another example was the situation recognized in the course of the
attempt during the war to standardize the wages of the stevedores and
longshoremen employed in the South Atlantic ports. Here straightforward
and unmodified standardization would have caused, it was judged, the
diversion of certain freight carrying steamship lines from ports in
which they now operate.

If the differences in advantage are in the nature of acquired
differences, only convincing evidence of the permanent harm likely to
result from general standardization would justify limitation or
variation. For in this case, the necessity of paying standard wage rates
is itself a powerful force towards overcoming conditions that have been
declared a definite competitive disadvantage. Probably no extension of
wage standardization in industry has ever taken place without injuring
some individuals. It is the net balance of gain or loss that is
significant. In most past instances when standardization has been
enforced in an industry, marked by an unequal distribution of acquired
advantages, the consequences have not verified the predictions of those
who believed it would cause great disturbance and unemployment. On the
contrary, it has frequently resulted in the development of better
organization within the industry.

Again, the case for the limitation or variation is apt to be the
stronger, when the difference in advantage is between concentrated but
widely separated areas, such as might exist between two ports, for
example, than when the differences are between different units in the
same industrial area or field. For in the second case, the possibility
of causing lasting unemployment would be less. The distinction, however,
is entirely one of degree.

Whatever limitations or variations are admitted should not be settled
arbitrarily; they should correspond to the facts which make them
advisable. The union attitude in respect to the extension of wage
standardization is sometimes as cautious as that of the employers. That
is because