Chapter 9 capital
The produce of labor constitutes the natural remuneration or natural wages of labour.
In the state of primitive society where the land has not been privately owned and capital has not yet accumulated, all the products of labor belong to the laborer, and there is neither a landlord nor an employer to share with him.
If this state of affairs continues, the wages of labor will rise in proportion to the increase in the productivity of labour, caused by the division of labour.But all things will become cheaper every day because less labor is required to produce them.In this state, the various commodities produced by the same amount of labor are naturally exchangeable for each other, so that a smaller amount of the produce of labor is required to purchase various commodities.
But all goods, though actually becoming cheaper, appear to be more expensive than before, in other words, exchangeable for greater quantities of other goods.Assume that the productivity of labor in most industries has increased tenfold, that is, the output of today's labor is ten times that of the previous day's labor, while the productivity of labor in a certain industry has only doubled, that is, the output of the current day's labor in the manufacturing industry is only two times. times the previous day's labor.In this case, the produce of the day's labor of the greater number of industries is exchanged for the produce of the day's labor of the other industry, and the former buys ten times as much work as it did, but buys twice as much as the latter.So a certain serving size of the latter, say a pound, seems to be five times more expensive than it used to be.But in fact it is 1/2 lower than before.Five times as much other goods are needed to buy the pound, but only one-half the amount of labor is needed to produce or buy it.So, getting this item is twice as easy today as it was before.
However, this primitive state in which laborers exclusively enjoy all the products of labor comes to an end once there is private ownership of land and accumulation of capital.This original position, therefore, has long since ceased to exist, before any appreciable improvement in the productiveness of labour; and it is in vain to inquire further as to the possible effect of this state on the remuneration or wages of labour.
Once the land became private property, the landlord required the laborer to give him a certain share of almost everything produced or collected from the land.The landlord's rent, therefore, becomes the first item to be deducted from the produce of the labor employed in the land.
Most of the common cultivators do not have the information to live until the crops are harvested.Their maintenance is usually advanced from the account of his capital by the farmer who employs them.He will not employ labourers, unless he can share in their produce, that is, unless he receives an appreciable profit in recovering his capital.Profit, therefore, becomes the second item to be deducted from the produce of the labor employed in the land.
In fact, the deduction of profits is not only true of agricultural products, but also of all other labor products.In all crafts and manufacturing industries, most laborers need their employers to advance them raw materials, wages and living expenses until the work is completed.The employer shares in the produce of his labour, that is, in the value which it adds to the raw material, and this share is his profit.
An independent workman sometimes has means sufficient to purchase raw materials for himself, and to maintain himself till the work is completed.He is both a laborer and an employer, and enjoys all the products of labor, that is, all the value that labor has added to raw materials.His gain, therefore, consists of two different incomes, profits of stock and wages of labour, which normally belong to two different persons.
However, such examples are not many.As far as the whole of Europe is concerned, the proportion is that there are twenty workers working under the boss and only one worker working independently.Moreover, the term wages of labor is generally understood as the wages earned by labor in the general case of one laborer and another owner of capital who employs him.
The ordinary wages of the labourer, are everywhere determined by the contract made between him and his employer.The interests of the two parties are by no means aligned.Laborers expect more, employers expect less.Laborers want to combine for higher wages, but employers want to combine for lower wages.
However, in the case of general disputes, it is not difficult to predict who will have an advantageous position between labor and management and who will be able to force the other party to accept the conditions proposed by you.The number of employers is small, and it is easier to unite.Moreover, their union was recognized by law, or at least not prohibited by law.But unions of laborers are prohibited by law.There have been many acts of parliament against associations united to raise the price of labour, but not one act to unite for the lowering of it.Moreover, in disputes, employers are always more durable than workers.Landlords, farmers, manufacturers, or merchants, even if they do not employ a single laborer, can often live on the capital they have accumulated for a year or two; unemployed laborers are rarely able to support a week. There are fewer ones in January, and there are almost none that can support a year.In the long run, the employer may need the laborer to the same degree as the laborer needs his employer, but the employer's want is not so urgent as the laborer's.
It is said that unions of workers are often heard, but unions of employers are rarely heard.But whoever thinks that employers seldom combine in practice, is ignorant of the truth of the matter.There is always and everywhere a secret union of solidarity among the employers to keep the wages of labour, not above their real rates of wages.Breaking unity is the most disreputable action at any time and place, and it is ridiculed by neighbors and colleagues.We seldom hear of this union precisely because it is a common or, so to speak, natural union that is not known.Moreover, employers sometimes organize special combinations in order to reduce the wages of labor below their real wages.This combination, until it achieves its purpose, is always kept in the utmost silence and secrecy.At this time, although laborers are deeply concerned about the secret combination of management, they often submit without resistance, and others do not know about it.However, against this combination of employers, workers often also organize defensive combinations against them.Moreover, even when there is no such combination of employers, the workers sometimes combine of their own accord in order to raise the price of their labour.The reason they hold is sometimes that bread is expensive, and sometimes that the masters get too much profit from their labour.Their combination, whether defensive or offensive, has always been legendary.In order to settle the dispute quickly, they always shouted and shouted, sometimes even with the most terrible violence.They are in a desperate situation, desperate to coerce their employers into immediate compliance with their demands, if they do not starve themselves to death.At this time, the employers, likewise, clamored for assistance from the Crown and demanded strict enforcement of the draconian laws against unions.The workers, therefore, have little to gain from the riots of those angry coalitions.Those unions, partly because of bureaucratic interference, partly because employers were more durable, and partly because the majority of workers had to succumb to their present livelihood, often ended with the leader being punished or defeated.
In disputes, however, though the employer is often in an advantageous position, there is a certain standard of wages, below which the common wages of even the lowest rank of labourers, do not seem to be able to be reduced for a considerable period of time.
The wages of those who are required to live by labor must at least be sufficient to maintain them.Wages, in most cases, must be a little more than subsistence, otherwise the laborer would be unable to support his family and carry on his family.Cantillon seems to infer from this that the lowest class of ordinary workers must earn at least twice as much living expenses as they need to support their two children, while his wife, because of the need to take care of their children, can only support herself with her labor income.However, according to general calculations, half of children often die before reaching the age of majority.The poorest laborers, therefore, generally wish to have at least four children, according to the above calculation, in order that two of them may live to manhood.But Cantillon thought that the necessary maintenance of four children might be almost equal to the living expenses of one adult.He also said that the labor of a strong slave was worth twice the cost of his subsistence, and that the labor of the lowest laborer could not be worth less than that of a strong slave.This at least seems to be certain, therefore, that in order to maintain their families, even the lowest ordinary laborer and husband-wife must earn a little more than what they need to maintain themselves.However, I do not want to determine the proportion of this excess, whether it is the above-mentioned proportion or other proportions.
There are, however, certain circumstances which sometimes place the labourers in an advantageous position, and enable them to receive wages well in excess of those mentioned above.It is clear that the wages mentioned above are minimum wages in accordance with general humanitarian standards.
In any country, if the demand for those who live by wages, that is, laborers, day laborers, servants of all kinds, etc., is constantly increasing, in other words, if more employment is provided every year than in the previous year, the laborers have no reason to raise their wages. And the need to combine.Not having enough laborers naturally creates competition among employers; and employers compete with each other to hire laborers at a high price, and thus automatically violate the natural union which prevents the rise of wages.
It is evident that the demand for wage laborers must increase in proportion to the increase of the funds appointed to pay the wages of labour.There are two kinds of funds of this kind: first, income in excess of subsistence needs;
Landlords, annuitants, and rich men, who think they have a surplus of income beyond their maintenance, will certainly employ the whole or a part of the surplus in employing some number of domestic servants.As this surplus increased, naturally the number of domestic servants they employed also increased.
If the independent laborer, a weaver, shoemaker, etc., has a surplus of capital beyond the purchase of raw materials for his own use, and to maintain him until his goods are sold, he naturally employs one, or even several others, with this surplus. helpers in order to profit from their labour.As this surplus increases, the number of helpers he employs naturally increases with it.
The demand for wage labourers, therefore, must increase with the increase of the income and capital of a country.Without an increase in income and capital, the demand for wage laborers can never increase.The increase of income and capital is the increase of national wealth.The demand for wage labourers, therefore, naturally increases with the increase of the wealth of the nation.Without an increase in national wealth, the demand for wage laborers can never increase.
However, it is not the huge existing national wealth, but the continuous increase of national wealth that raises the wages of labor.The highest wages of labour, therefore, do not occur in the richest countries, but in the most prosperous, i.e., the fastest growing rich.It is true that England today is richer than all parts of North America, but the wages of labor are higher in all parts of North America than in parts of England.In New York, the daily wages of ordinary laborers are three shillings and sixpence in U.S. dollars, which is equivalent to two shillings in British dollars; shipbuilders and carpenters are paid ten shillings and sixpence in U.S. dollars, plus a pint of rum and wine worth sixpence in British dollars. Six shillings and sixpence sterling; plasterers and carpenters eight shillings dollars, four shillings and sixpence sterling; helpers five shillings dollars, two shillings and tenpence sterling.These prices are on top of London prices.Wages were said to be as high in other colonies as in New York.The price of food is much lower everywhere in North America than in England.There has never been a famine in North America.That is to say, in a bad harvest year, the output is only reduced, and the supply is not reduced to the point of insufficient supply.If, therefore, the money-price of labor in North America is higher than in all parts of the home country, its real price, that is, its real power of money-price to the labourer, must be higher in proportion to the disposition of the necessaries and conveniencies of life.
North America, though not so rich as England, was more prosperous than England, and increased at a much greater rate.The surest sign of the prosperity of a country is the increase in the number of its inhabitants.The population of England and most other European countries would not dare to say that it doubled in about five hundred years, but in the British colonies of North America, it doubled in twenty or twenty-five years.As far as the present is concerned, the chief cause of this rapid increase is not the constant immigration of new inhabitants, but the rapid multiplication of population.It is said that local elderly residents can often see fifty, one hundred or even more than one hundred direct descendants with their own eyes.Due to the good labor remuneration, many children not only did not become a burden to the family, but became the source of family prosperity.Before leaving the parental home, the labor of each child was calculated to be worth a hundred pounds in net income.A young widow with four or five children seldom finds a second husband among the middle and lower classes of Europe, but in North America those children are often the property that induces men to propose to her.The worth of children is the greatest encouragement to marriage.Therefore, it is not surprising that North Americans marry early.Yet, notwithstanding the great increase in population which early marriages entailed, the people of North America continued to complain of a shortage of laborers.The demand for labourers, and the means of maintaining them, seem to have increased much more rapidly than the supply of labour.
We cannot hope to find very high wages in a country which, however rich it is, is long at a standstill.The funds earmarked for the payment of wages, that is, the income and capital of the inhabitants, may amount to very large sums.But if this amount were constant, or nearly constant, for centuries, the number of laborers employed in each year would easily supply the number of laborers required in the next year, or even have a surplus.Thus there will be no shortage of labourers, nor will employers compete with each other for labourers.On the other hand, the number of laborers will naturally increase beyond the number required to be employed.Employment opportunities are often scarce, and laborers are compelled to compete with each other for jobs.If the wages of the laborers in this country were sufficient to support their respective means and have a surplus, the competition among the laborers, and the interest of the employers, would soon reduce them to the lowest wages, which are the common standard of humanity.China has always been the richest country in the world, that is to say, the country with the most fertile land, the most meticulous cultivation, and the largest and most industrious people.For a long time, however, it seemed to have stagnated.There is little difference between the reports of today's travelers on the cultivation, industry, and population density of China and the accounts of Marco Polo who visited the country five hundred years ago.Perhaps long before Marco Polo's time, China's wealth had reached the full extent allowed by the country's legal system.Although there are many contradictions in the reports of various travelers, there is no agreement on the low wages of labor in China and the difficulties of laborers in supporting their families.The Chinese cultivator works all day long, and is satisfied if his reward is enough to buy a small amount of rice.The condition of technicians is even worse.European craftsmen are always waiting for customers in their own workshops, but Chinese craftsmen are carrying equipment with them, and they are constantly running around the market in search of, or begging for work.The poverty of the lower classes of China far exceeds that of the poorest people in Europe.It is said that in the vicinity of Guangzhou, there are hundreds of thousands of families who have no residence on land and live in small fishing boats on the river.Because of the lack of food, these people often urge European ships to abandon the most filthy waste overboard.The carcass of a decomposing animal, such as a dead cat or dog, even if it is half rotten and stinking, they take it with as much pleasure as other peoples get wholesome food.Marriage is rewarded in China, not because of the promise of having children, but because of the freedom to kill children.In every big city, there are always a number of babies abandoned in the streets or alleys every night, or thrown into the water like puppies.And this kind of terrible infanticide is said to be a means of livelihood that some people openly admit.
Still, while China may be standing still, it doesn't appear to be regressing just yet.There, there is no city abandoned by its residents, nor is there any cultivated land left to go barren.The labor employed from year to year remains the same, or nearly the same; and therefore the means appointed for its maintenance are not appreciably diminished.Therefore, although the means of subsistence of the lowest class of laborers are very scarce, they can manage to perfunctory, so that their class maintains its original number.
It is quite a different matter in countries where the funds earmarked for the maintenance of labour, have been markedly diminished.Fewer hirelings and labourers, in every class of employment, are required every year than in the preceding year.Many people of the upper classes, who cannot find work in the highest trades, want to find work in the lowest trades.Thus, in the lowest occupations, not only are there more lowest-class laborers than is needed, but there is also a plethora of people from other classes pouring in.As a result, the competition for employment has become so severe that it has reduced the wages of labor to a miserable and impoverished standard of living.And, even with these harsh conditions, many cannot find employment.These people either starve to death or become beggars, or they may only obtain means of living by engaging in heinous activities.The scourges of want, starvation, and death then fell upon the lowest class of labourers, and afterwards to all the upper classes, until at last the population of the country was reduced to such a number as could be easily maintained by the income and capital which tyranny or misfortune had left.This is perhaps almost the case with Bengal and several other British colonies in the East Indies.If in a country where the land is fertile and the population has been greatly reduced, so that the means of subsistence are not very difficult, yet three or four hundred thousand people are dying of starvation every year, we may conclude that it is because the country is designated for Funds to sustain the working poor are dwindling rapidly.The different nature of the political institutions by which England protected and governed North America, and the commercial companies which oppressed and suppressed the East Indies, may perhaps best be illustrated by the different circumstances of these two places.
Therefore, good remuneration for labor is the inevitable result and natural symptom of the increase of national wealth.Conversely, the insufficient maintenance of the working poor is a symptom of stagnant society, and the starvation of the working people is a symptom of rapid social regression.
The wages of labor at the present day in Great Britain appear to be evidently in excess of what is required to maintain a laboring family.To prove this, we need not make tedious or uncertain calculations to infer the minimum wages a laborer needs to support a family.There are many evident indications that the wages of labor in all parts of Britain are not governed by a humane minimum wage.
In the first place, there is a distinction between summer and winter wages, even in the lowest ranks of labour, in almost all parts of Britain.Summer wages are always top wages.However, there are temporary expenditures on salary and charcoal in winter, so family living expenses in winter are the largest in a year.The fact that wages are highest where the cost of living is lowest shows that the wages of labor are not governed by the amount necessary for subsistence, but by the quantity of work and its supposed value.It may be said that the labourer should save a part of his summer wages to pay his winter expenses, and that his wages throughout the year should not exceed what he would need to maintain himself during the year.This is not the case, however, for slaves or those who are absolutely dependent on others for their livelihood.His daily necessities are in proportion to his daily needs.
Secondly, The wages of labour, in Great Britain, do not vary with the price of provisions.The price of food, everywhere, varies from year to year, and often from month to month.But in many places the money-price of labour, sometimes after half a century, remains unchanged.If, therefore, the poor working man in these countries can maintain his wealth in the years when food is most expensive, he will be able to live comfortably in the years when food is cheap and plentiful; When he was young, he lived a prosperous life.In many parts of Great Britain during the past ten years food has been dear, without the money price of labour having risen appreciably.It is true that the money price of labor has risen in some places, but that has not so much to do with the increased cost of food as with the increased demand for labour.
Thirdly, the price of food varies more than the wages of labor from year to year, and the wages of labor vary more than the price of food from place to place.The price of bread and butcher's meat is generally the same, or about the same, in nearly all parts of Great Britain.These two commodities, and most other retail goods (everything that the laboring poor buys lightly), are as cheap in the great towns as in the remote places, or are still cheaper in the great towns, for reasons which I shall show hereafter.But the wages of labor in great cities and their neighbourhoods, are frequently one-fifth or one-fourth, or twenty or twenty-five per cent., higher than those in places a few miles away.The common price of labour, in and about London, may be said to be eighteenpence a day.A few miles away, it is reduced to fourteen or fifteen pence.The common price of labour, in and around Edinburgh, is as low as tenpence a day, and as low as eightpence a few miles away.Eightpence is the common price of common labor throughout the greater part of the Lowlands of Scotland, where it varies much less than in England.Though a difference in the price of labor may not necessarily drive a man from one parish to another, yet such a difference in the price of goods will necessarily drive many goods of great volume from one parish to another, and from one part of the country to another. In another place, or even only the transport from one end of the world to the other, became so frequent that they soon equalized.Although it has been concluded for a long time that human nature wants to move, but according to our experience, it is clear that human beings are the ones who relocate once again, and they are the least fond of moving.The laboring poor, if they can maintain their families where the price of labor is cheapest in Britain, will certainly live well in Britain where the wages are highest.
Fourthly, the changes in the price of labour, whether in time or in place, not only do not coincide with changes in the price of food, but are often just the opposite.
The price of common corn is higher in Scotland than in England, from which a great quantity of corn is nearly every year imported from England.English corn must be sold in Scotland, which imports it, at a higher price than in England, which exports it, but it cannot be sold in the Scottish market at a higher price than the native Scottish corn of the same quality which competes with it.The quality of grain depends mainly on the amount of flour it can grind.In this respect, English corn is far superior to Scotch corn, so that, though it may be more expensive in appearance, or in volume, than in Scotland, it is generally less expensive in substance, that is, in quality or weight. Much cheaper than Scotland.The price of labour, however, is lower in Scotland than in England.The working poor, therefore, if they can maintain their families in Scotland, which is one part of the United Kingdom, can live well in England, which is the other part of the United Kingdom.Oatmeal is at present the most common and best food among the common people of Scotland, which is generally much worse than the most common food of the same class of people in England.This difference in lifestyle is not the origin of the difference in wages between the people of the two places, but the result of the difference in wages, but many people often find it unbelievable that the effect becomes the cause.A is rich and B is poor, not because A has a horse, but B walks, but because A is rich and can have a carriage, and B is poor, so he has to walk.
In each year the price of corn in England and Scotland was higher in the previous century than in the present.Now, this is an indisputable fact, and if any possible demonstration must be made, it is more definite in Scotland than in England.Because Scotland's annual public grain price can be used as proof, Scotland assesses the prices of various grains in various places in Scotland every year according to the actual market conditions and in accordance with the oath procedures.If this direct proof requires circumstantial evidence as well, I say the same is true of France, or even most of Europe.As far as France is concerned, we have the clearest proof.But, though it cannot be doubted that the price of corn in England and Scotland in the last century was a little higher than in the present, it is equally indubitable that the price of labour, in those two places, was much lower.If, therefore, the working poor man was able to maintain his family in the last century, he must be able to live a much more comfortable life now.In the last century the most common daily wages of common labour, in the greater part of Scotland, were sixpence in summer, and fivepence in winter.In the Highlands of Scotland, and in some parts of the Western Isles, the wages are still three shillings a week, or about three shillings.At present, in the Lowlands of Scotland, the most common wages of common labor are eightpence a day.In the vicinity of Edinburgh, and in the states which are adjacent to, and thus likely to be influenced by, England, and in the vicinity of Glascoe, Carran, and Iowa, where the demand for labor has of late been greatly increased, the most common wages of common labor are tenpence a day, and sometimes one shilling.The improvement of agriculture, industry and commerce in England was much earlier than that in Scotland.With these improvements the demand for, and the price of, labor must increase.The wages of labour, therefore, were higher in England than in Scotland, in the last and present centuries.And since that time the wages of labor have increased greatly in England, but as the wages paid in every part of England are of a greater variety than in Scotland, it is more difficult to ascertain the rate of increase of wages in England than in Scotland.In 1614, a foot soldier received the same eightpence a day as it does today.When this rate of pay was originally fixed, it must have been based on the ordinary wages of ordinary labourers, since the majority of the infantry are drawn from this class.In the era of Charles II, Hales, the President of the High Court, estimated that the expenses for a family of six laborers (father and mother, two children who could work slightly, and two children who could not work at all) were ten shillings a week, that is, Twenty-six pounds a year.He believed that if they could not earn this amount by labor, they would have to beg or steal to make it up.Hales seems to have done some research on this issue.From Gregory, who is familiar with political mathematics and won Dr. Devine.Jin also calculated the ordinary income of ordinary laborers and foreign helpers in the first six years, and thought that an average family composed of three and a half people would cost fifteen pounds a year.On the surface, King's calculation seems to be different from Hales' calculation, but in fact it is roughly the same.They all agreed that the weekly expenses of such a family were about twentypence a head.Since that time, the money income and money expenses of such families have increased considerably in most parts of the Kingdom, though in some places more and in others less, and not by as much as in the most recently published report. So much for the exaggerated reports about the rising wages of labor today.It must be pointed out that the price of labor can never be determined with absolute accuracy anywhere.For the same kind of labour, in the same place, is often paid different prices, according to the ingenuity of the labourer, and the generosity of the employer.Where wages are not regulated by law, what we want to determine is only the most common wages.Moreover, experience seems to teach us that, though the law has repeatedly attempted to fix wages, it has never in practice properly regulated them.
The real recompence of labour, that is, the real quantity of the necessaries and conveniences of life which it brings to the labourer, has probably increased in the present century in a greater proportion than the money price of labour.Not only is corn a little cheaper than it was formerly, but many other things, which are the agreeable and wholesome food of the laboring poor, have also been greatly reduced.For example, the price of potatoes in most parts of the kingdom is now half what it was thirty or forty years ago.Turnips, carrots, cabbages, etc., which were formerly grown by the shovel and are now commonly grown by the plow, can be said to be as cheap as potatoes.All fruits and vegetables have also become cheap.We know that most of the apples and onions consumed in England in the previous century were imported from Flanders.The great improvement in the manufacture of linen and woolen cloth has furnished the laborer with better and cheaper clothing.The great improvement in the manufacture of base metals has furnished the laborer, not only with better implements of trade, but with much agreeable and convenient furniture.Soap, salt, candles, hides, and fermented wine, it is true, have been raised in price by taxes;The high price of this small number of commodities does not offset the decline in the price of most other commodities.The tendency of the world to say that luxury has spread to the lower classes, that even the working poor are now dissatisfied with their former conditions of food, clothing, and shelter, convinces us that the money price of labor has increased, as well as its real price.
Is the improvement of the living conditions of the lower classes good for society or bad for society?The answer to this question is obvious at first glance.Servants, labourers, and employees of all kinds form the greatest part of any great political society.An improvement in the situation of the greatest part of the members of the society can never be regarded as detrimental to the society as a whole.A society which has a great part of its members in a state of poverty and misery can never be said to be a prosperous and happy one.Moreover, it is fair for those who provide food, clothing and housing for the whole society to share part of their own labor products so that they can get decent food, clothing and housing.
Poverty undoubtedly makes people not want to marry, but it does not necessarily make people not marry.Poverty also seems to favor fertility.The half-starved women of the Scottish Highlands often bear more than twenty children, while the luxurious women of the upper classes are often barren, usually only two or three.Infertility, although common in the upper class, is rare in the lower class.Feminine luxury, though it stimulates the desire for pleasure, seems to tend to weaken, and often destroy, the power of fertility.
Poverty does not prevent childbearing, but it is extremely unfavorable to the upbringing of children.Tender plants came up, but soon died in the cold soil and harsh climate.I have often heard of instances in the Highlands of Scotland of a mother who gave birth to twenty children, of whom only one survived.Several experienced officers told me that all the children born to the soldiers in the regiment were not enough to fill up the vacancies of the regiment, even to serve as the regiment's drummers.However, there are more cute children seen near the barracks than in other places.These children rarely reach the age of thirteen or fourteen.Half of the children born in some places die before the age of four; in many places, half of the children die before the age of seven; and half of the children born before the age of nine or ten are almost a common phenomenon.Such a large death rate can be seen among the lower classes everywhere.They cannot pay as much attention to raising their children as the upper classes.Generally speaking, though their marriages are more productive than those of the better classes, fewer of their children reach manhood.Compared with the children of ordinary people, the mortality rate of children adopted in foundling houses and parish charities is even higher.
Animals multiply in proportion to their means of subsistence.No animal multiplies beyond this ratio.In a civilized society, however, it is only among the lower classes that the insufficiency of the means of subsistence limits the further reproduction of the species.There is no way to limit further multiplication but to kill most of the offspring of their multi-child marriages.
A good remuneration of labour, by enabling the labourers to improve the provision of their children, thereby enabling them to bring up a greater number of children, tends to relax and extend this limit.It should be observed that the above-mentioned extension of the limits must necessarily be as far as possible in proportion to the demands of labour.If the demand for labor continues to increase, labor compensation will inevitably encourage laborers to marry and proliferate, so that they can continue to increase their population to supply the ever-increasing demand for labor.Whenever the remuneration of labor does not encourage the increase of population, the want of labourers will soon elevate the recompense of labour.Whenever the reward of labor excessively encourages the increase of population, the plethora of laborers soon reduces the reward of labor to what it ought to be.The supply of labor in the market is so inadequate in the one case, and so superabundant in the latter, that both force the price of labour, and soon restore it to the proper level which society requires.Therefore, just as the demand for other commodities necessarily governs the production of other commodities, so the demand for population necessarily governs the production of population.If production is too slow, it is promoted; if production is too rapid, it is suppressed.In all parts of the world, whether in North America, in Europe, or in China, it is this need that governs and determines the degree of population reproduction.This demand has become the reason for the rapid population increase in North America, the slow and gradual population increase in Europe, and the stagnant population growth in China.
It is said that the wear and tear of a slave is his loss to his master, and the wear and tear of a free servant is his own loss.In fact, the loss of the latter is as much the loss of the owner of the house as the loss of the former.Workmen and servants of every kind must be paid such wages as will enable them to maintain their species, as the demands of society increase, decrease, or remain the same for them.不過，自由傭工的損耗，雖同是僱主的損失，但與奴隸的損耗比較，則僱主所受損失又少得多。要是我可這樣說，用作補充或修補奴隸損耗的資金，通常都由不留心的僱主或疏忽的監工管理。但修補自由傭工損耗的資金卻由自由傭工自己管理。一由錢財通常管理得漫無秩序的富人管理，所只管理上自亦漫無秩序；一由處處節省和錙銖必較的窮人自己管理，所以管理上亦是處處節省和錙銖必較。在這樣不同的管理下，相同的目的，卻需要有大不相同的費用。所以，徵之一切時代和一切國民的經驗，我相信，由自由人作成的作品，歸根到底比由奴隸作成的作品低廉。即在普通勞動工資很高的波士頓、紐約和費城，也是這樣。
所以，充足的勞動報酬，既是財富增加的結果，又是人口增加的原因。對充足的勞動報酬發出怨言，就是對最大公共繁榮的必然結果與原因發出悲歎。
也許值得指出，不是在社會達到絕頂富裕的時候，而是在社會處於進步狀態並日益富裕的時候，貧窮勞動者，即大多數人民，似乎最幸福、最安樂。在社會靜止狀態下，境遇是艱難的；在退步狀態下，是困苦的。進步狀態實是社會各階級快樂旺盛的狀態。靜止狀態是呆滯的狀態，而退步狀態則是悲慘的狀態。
充足的勞動報酬，鼓勵普通人民增殖，因而鼓勵他們勤勉。勞動工資，是勤勉的獎勵。勤勉像人類其他品質一樣，越受獎勵越發勤奮。豐富的生活資料，使勞動者體力增進，而生活改善和晚景優裕的愉快希望，使他們益加努力。所只，高工資地方的勞動者，總是比低工資地方的勞動者活潑、勤勉和敏捷。例如，英格蘭勞動者比蘇格蘭勞動者強；大都會附近的勞動者比僻遠農村的勞動者強。誠然，有些勞動者如能在四天中掙得足以維持一星期生活的生活資料，將無所事事地虛度過其餘三天，但就大多數勞動者說，並不如此。反之，在工資按件計算時，許多勞動者往往沒幾年就把身體搞垮了。據說，倫敦及其他一些地方的木匠，不能保持最精壯氣力到八年以上。此種現象，在工資按件計算的許多其他行業，常有發生。製造業一般是按件計算工資，連農村勞動在工資較通常為高的地方，也是按件計資。幾乎各種技工，在特殊業務上，往往因操勞過度而生特殊疾病。義大利著名醫生拉馬齊尼，關於這類疾病，曾著有專書。我們不把我們的士兵看做勤勞人民，但在他們從事某項特殊工程而按件領受工資時，軍官常須與領工者約定，他們每日報酬，按他們的報酬率，不得超過一定數額。在這條件訂定之前，士兵常因相互競爭希望得到較大報酬而操勞過度，損害健康。一星期中四天過度的操勞，乃是共余三天閒散的真正原因，而世人對於這三天的閒散，卻大發牢騷並大聲叫囂。大多數人在連續數天緊張的腦力或體力勞動之後，自然會強烈地想要休息。這慾望，除非受到暴力或某種強烈需要的抑制，否則是幾乎壓制不住的。天性要求，在緊張勞動之後，有一定程度的縱情快樂，有時只是悠閒自在一會，有時卻是閒遊浪蕩和消遣娛樂。如不依從這要求，其結果常是很危險的，有時是致命的，不然，遲早亦會產生職業上的陣殊疾病。如果僱主聽從理性及人道主義的主宰，就不應常常鼓勵勞動者勤勉，應當要他們適度地工作。我相信，在各個行業，一個能工作適度的人，能夠繼續不斷工作，不僅長期保持健康，而且在一年中做出比其他人更多的工作。
有人說，在物價低廉的年度，勞動者大抵較平常懶惰；在物價高昂的年度，則較平常勤勉。他們由此得到結論：生活資料豐富，勞動者的工作，就弛緩起來；生活資料不足，勞動者的工作就緊張起來。說生活資料略較平常豐富，也許使一部分勞動者偷閒，那是無可置疑的，但若說大多數勞動者，都會因此怠於作業，或者說，一般人在吃得不好時，比吃得好時工作更好，在意志消沉時，比興致勃勃時工作更好，在疾病時，比健康時工作更好，那似乎是不大可靠的說法。應該指出，對一般人民說，饑饉的年歲，往往是疾病死亡的年歲，而疾病和死亡，勢必減低他們的勞動產物。
在物資豐厚的年度，傭工往往離開主人，靠自己勞動生活。但食品價格的低廉，由於增加用來維持傭工的資金，也鼓勵僱主，尤其是農業家，僱用更多的傭工。因為在這時期，農業家與其以低廉市價出賣穀物，倒不如以穀物維持較多傭工，以期得到較大的利潤。對傭工的需求增加，而供應這需求的人數卻減少。所以勞動價格往往在物價低廉時上升。
在物資缺乏的年度，生計的困難與不安定，使這些傭工切望復得舊有的工作。但食品的高價，由於減少用來維持勞動的資金，使僱主傾向於減少現有的雇工，而不傾向於增加。況且，在物價高昂的年度，貧窮獨立勞動者往往把以前用以購置材料的少額資本全部提出來消費，這樣就不得不變為雇工。求職的人數，既然超過了就職的機會，許多人就只好接受比通常低的條件，來獲取職業。所以在物價昂貴的年度，傭工和幫工的工資往往低落。
因此，各種居主，在物價高昂的年度，和勞動者訂結契約，比在物價低廉的年度更為有利，而且覺得，勞動者在前一場合，比在後一場合，更為恭順，更願依靠他們，所以，僱主們認為，物價高昂的年度，對他們的事業更為有利，那是很自然的。此外，地主和農業家喜歡物價高昂的年度，還有一個原因，那就是，他們的地租和利潤，大部分決定於糧食的價格。不過，若說一般人在為自己工作時，工作較少，在為他人工作時，工作較多，那是再荒謬不過的。貧窮的獨立勞動者，一般都比按件計資的幫工勤勉，因為前者享有自身勞動的全部生產物，後者則須與僱主分享。大製造廠中的雇工，容易受惡友誘惑，往往道德淪喪；獨立勞動者卻不易受此影響。工資以年或月計的雇工，不論工作多少，都得到同樣的工資和津貼，就這一點說，獨立勞動者的工作效率比這些雇工更大得多。物價高昂的年歲，傾向於增高獨立勞動者對各種幫工和傭工的比例，而物價低廉的年歲，則傾向於減低其比例。
麥桑斯是法國一位博學多能的作家，在聖．埃蒂安選舉時任貢稅收稅官。為要說明貧民在物價低廉時所做的工作比物價高昂時多，他曾把三種製造品埃爾伯夫的粗毛織品和盧昂遍地皆是的麻織品與絲織品在物價低時及物價高時的產量及價值，拿來比較。據他由官署登記簿抄下的報告，這三種製造品在物價低時的生產量及價值，一般都比物價高時大；物價最低的年度，生產量與價值，往往最大，而物價最高的年度，往往最小。這三種製造品似乎都處於生產停滯狀態，其生產量，逐年計算，雖略有出入，但總的說來，卻是不增不減。
蘇格蘭的麻織品，和約克郡西區的粗毛織品，同是正在增加的製造品。其生產量與價值，雖時有變動，但大體上卻在增高。不過，我曾檢閱這些製造品年產額公佈的記錄，卻不能發現年產額的變動與各時期的物價高低有什麼顯著關係。誠然，在物資非常不足的一七四○年，這兩種製造品產量都有很大下降，但在物資仍是非常不足的一七五六年，蘇格蘭製造品產量卻比常年多。同年，約克郡製造品產量卻下降，其生產額，直至一七六六年，換言之，直到美洲印花稅法廢止以後，才恢復到一七五五年的數額。在一七六六年和一七六七年，約克郡製造品生產額增加到前此所未有的程度，而且從那時起不斷地增加。
以販銷遠地為目的的一切大製造業的產品量，與其說必然取塊於產地旺季價格是高或是低，倒不如說必然取決於消費國中影響商品需求的那些情況，取決干和平或戰爭，取決於其他競爭製造業的盛衰，取決於那些商品的主要顧客是高興買還是不高興買。此外，也許在物價低廉時期製造的額外作品，有大部分，未曾登記在製造業公開記錄上。離開僱主的男傭工，成為獨立勞動者。婦女回到父母家中，從事紡織，給自身及家庭製造衣服。連獨立勞動者也未必都製造售給大眾的商品，而為鄰人僱請，製造家庭用品。所以，他們的勞動產品，常沒登記在公開記錄上，這些記錄，有時是那麼誇張，而我們商人和製造業者，卻往往根據這種記錄，妄斷最大帝國的盛衰。
雖然勞動價格的變動，不一定都與食物價格的變動一致，而且往往完全相反，但我們不可因此認為，食品價格對於勞動價格沒有影響。勞動的貨幣價格，必然受兩種情況的支配：其一，是對勞動的需求；其二，是生活必需品和便利品的價格。對勞動的需求，按照它是在增加、減少或不增不減，換言之，按照它所需要的是增加著的人口、減少著的人口或是不增不減的人口，而決定必須給予勞動者的生活必需品和便利品的數量，而勞動的貨幣價格，取決於購買這數量所需要的金額。所以，在食物低廉的場合，勞動的貨幣價格雖有時很高，但在食物昂貴而勞動需求繼續不變的場合，勞動的貨幣價格卻更高。
勞動的貨幣價格，在突然非常大的豐年，有時上升，而在突然非常大的荒年，有時下落，這是因為在前一場合，勞動的需求增加，而在後一場合，勞動的需求減少。在突然非常大的豐年，許多僱主手中的資金，足夠維持和僱用比他們前一年所僱用的多的勞動者，而這些超過通常需要的勞動者，未必都能雇到，於是，要僱用更多勞動者的僱主，便相互競爭，這在有的時候就使勞動的貨幣價格及真實價格抬高起來。
在突然發生的非常大荒年，情形正相反。用來僱用勞動者的資金，既較前年度為少，便有許多人失業，於是他們為獲得職業而相互競爭，這在有的時候就使勞動的真實價格與貨幣價格都下落。譬如在一七四○年這個非常大的荒年，有許多人只要有飯吃就願工作。在後此的幾個豐年裡，僱用勞動者和雇工僅比較困難了。
食品漲價，會提高勞動的價格，而物價昂貴年度的荒歉，由於減少了勞動需求，因而會降低勞動的價格。反之，食品跌價，會減低勞動的價格，而物價低廉年度的豐饒，由於增加了勞動需求，因而會抬高勞動的價格。在食品價格只有一般變動的場合，那兩種對立原因，似乎會互相抵消。這也許就是勞動工資所以到處都較食物價格穩定得多、經久得多的一部分原因。
勞動工資的增加，必然按照價格中工資那一部分增高的比例，抬高許多商品的價格，並按照價格增高的比例，減少國內外這些商品的消費。但是，使勞動工資增加的原因，即資本的增加，卻會增加勞動生產力，使較少的勞動生產較多的產品。僱用很多勞動者的資本家，為自己的利益打算，勢必妥當分配他們的業務，使他們生產盡可能多的產品。由於同一原因，他力圖把他和他的工人所能想到的最好機械供給他們。在某一特殊工廠內勞動者間發生的事實，由於同一理由，也在大社會的勞動者間發生。勞動者的人數愈多，他們的分工當然就愈精密。更多人從事於發明對各人操作最適用的機械，所以這種機械就容易發明出來。由於有了這些改良的機械，許多物品能用比以前少得多的勞動生產出來。這樣，勞動量的減少，就不只抵償勞動價格的增加。第九章論資本利