But like the other State Capitalist reforms (until they are supplemented by some more radical policy) it will at the same time automatically bring about an increase of existing inequalities of income and an intensification of social injustice.
Mr.William Hard in a study of workingmen's compensation for _Everybody's Magazine_ has reached a similar conclusion to that of Mr.
Brandeis: "Far from attacking the present relationship between employer and employee, automatic compensation specifically recognizes it.

The backbone of the present so-called 'capitalism'; namely, the hiring of the unpropertied class by the propertied class to do work for wages, is not caused by automatic compensation to lose a single vertebra, and automatic compensation has nothing whatever to do with Socialism except that it is accomplished under the supervision of the State." If compulsory insurance against accidents "has nothing whatever to do with Socialism," neither have compulsory insurance against sickness, against old age, against certain phases of unemployment.
The social reformers propose a labor policy that is _for_ the people whether they like it or not; the only "rights" it gives them are "the right to live" and "the right to work." Its first object is to produce more efficient and profitable laborers, its second to have the government take control of organized charity, to which aspect I must now turn.

Most of the labor reforms, enacted to secure for the laborer "what for the Nation's sake even the poorest of its subjects should have," have been urged more strongly by philanthropists and political economists than by representatives of the workers.

In America "the minimum wage," for example, is being worked up by a special committee consisting almost exclusively of this class, while workmen's compensation has been indorsed by the most varied political and social elements, from the chief organ of American philanthropists, and Theodore Roosevelt, to the Hearst newspapers.
With "the national efficiency" in view, Mr.Webb asks the British government to take up the policy of a "national minimum," including not only a minimum below which wages are not to fall, but also a similar minimum of leisure, sanitation, and education.[67] Mr.Edward Devine, editor of the leading philanthropic and reform journal in America, the _Survey_, outlines an identical policy and also insists like Mr.Webb that the Socialist can lay no exclusive claim to it.
"The social economist [_i.e._ reformer]," writes Mr.Devine, "is sometimes confused with the Utopian [_i.e._ Socialist].

They are, however, very distinct types of reformers.