SECT. III.—: DIFFERENCE IN THEIR INFLUENCE OVER WAGES BETWEEN A DEMAND FOR LABOUR AND FOR ITS PRODUCTS.

It is very generally supposed that the influence of a demand for labour, and of a demand for the products of labour, over the rate of wages and the condition of the labouring class, are all but equivalent; and most generally, indeed, they are used as synonymous expressions. There is, however, no such identity between them. A demand for labour always differs in a less or greater degree from a demand for commodities—the extent of the difference depending principally on the description of commodities for which there is a demand.

Edition: current; Page: [356]

It is plain that an increased demand for labour in general, or for a particular variety of labour, necessarily makes a proportional addition to the wages, and, consequently, to the comforts and conveniences of the labouring class. If the increased demand comprise all sorts of labour, the improvement occasioned by it will be immediately experienced by all sorts of labourers; and if it be for one or a few sorts only, its beneficial influence will be gradually diffused over the whole class, in the way previously pointed out.

But the influence of an increased demand for commodities, or for the produce of labour, is by no means identical with an increased demand for labour, and would depend partly on whether the commodity was wholly or in part the produce of labour or of machinery, and partly on its being suited or unsuited to the employment and subsistence of work people.

1. If a sum be expended on commodities wholly produced by labour, its influence will, in so far, be nearly the same as if it were directly expended upon labour. It is contended, indeed, that if the commodities be partly produced by the aid of machinery or capital, the result will be different; and that the sum expended upon them will not, in such case, wholly go to replace labour, but will partly go to replace the wear and tear of the capital employed in their production, and the profits of the capitalist. But though this be true, the difference is of little importance; for, capital being itself the result of antecedent labour, whatever is expended upon it really goes to replace labour, and in the end is identical in its effects with a direct expenditure upon the latter.

2. The influence of an increased demand for commodities over the wages and condition of the labouring class depends materially on their nature, and the uses to which they may be applied.

(a.) Suppose an individual has 100l. or 1,000l. to expend, and that he lays it out in the purchase of pictures, statues, mirrors, books, jewellery, or some such articles; in such case, it is plain that the 100l. or 1,000l. so expended can afford Edition: current; Page: [357] no farther employment or means of subsistence to any one. The articles for which it has been exchanged yield, no doubt, a gratification to their owner, and their accumulation and diffusion may, and most probably will, improve the public taste. But they cannot do more than this; they cannot serve as capital, or as food, or clothes, for the farther employment or support of the labouring classes. They supply moral and intellectual, not physical wants.

(b.) But suppose that, instead of expending his 100l. or 1,000l. upon pictures, statues, &c., the owner expends it upon food and clothes, and brings these into his house; in this case he may employ a number of individuals, either as menial servants, or as manufacturing or agricultural labourers, giving them portions of his stock of food and clothes in return for their services. Hence it results that the influence of a demand for commodities over the condition of the labourers depends to a considerable extent on the description of commodities in demand. This, we think, must be already sufficiently obvious; but, to set it in a clearer point of view, let it be supposed that two capitalists, A and B, go to market with equal sums, and replace by their purchases equal amounts of previous labour, or expenditure. Thus far they both give the same encouragement to the employment of labour. But suppose, farther, that A buys articles that can neither be used as food nor as capital in industrial undertakings, and that B buys articles that may be and are intended to be so used, it is evident their means of employing labour will henceforth be different. A has his books, his pictures, his cabinets, vases, gems, and so forth, which he shuts up, enjoys himself, and exhibits to his friends; but how much soever this may purify or refine the taste, the possession of the greatest amount of such articles does not give him the means of supporting or employing a solitary individual. B, on the contrary, who bought provisions, or machinery, or both, has it plainly in his power to employ an additional number of menials, or of manufacturing or agricultural workpeople, occasioning in either case an immediate demand for Edition: current; Page: [358] labour, and providing, in the latter, for its continued extension. The expenditure of the latter must, therefore, have a different effect upon wages, and be more beneficial to the labouring class, than the expenditure of the former.

Precisely the same effects would follow were those who buy food and clothes, and assign portions thereof to menials or other dependants, to buy the services of such parties directly with money, leaving it to them to supply themselves with necessaries. Thus, suppose that an individual who has 500l. or 1,000l. to expend, employs it in paying the wages of labourers, the latter will carry the sums paid to them to market, and buy food and clothes with them, exactly as the owner would have done had he carried the amount there himself, and subsequently employed the produce in boarding the parties in his house.

It therefore results—should there be a preference among the more opulent classes for fine houses, costly furniture, or generally for the products of the fine arts—that any circumstance that should tend to change such fashion, or should lessen the demand for these articles, and increase that for gardeners, grooms, footmen, and other servants, would add proportionally to the employment of the labouring class. And upon this ground Ricardo has concluded that the produce of the additional taxes imposed upon the richer classes during war, being mostly expended upon soldiers and sailors, affords subsistence to a greater number of persons than it would have done had it been left with its original owners—the probability in such case being that it would have been, partly at least, expended on unconsumable articles. And the preceding statements show that there can be no reasonable doubt that Ricardo is well founded in his conclusion.1

Edition: current; Page: [359]

But in showing the greater influence of expenditure upon certain descriptions of articles than upon others, over the demand for labour, we should not wish to be understood as expressing any opinion in favour of expenditure upon menial services over expenditure upon articles of virtu, or of luxurious accommodation. It is much better, we think, for the interests of the public, as well as of the wealthier classes, that there should be an excess of expenditure upon houses, pleasure grounds, costly furniture, &c., than upon footmen and menials. The latter are the true fruges consumere nati; and though their services, when confined within due limits, be necessary to the well-being of society, any excess of expenditure upon them is the most wasteful imaginable. As a class they are proverbial for want of industry, enterprise, and foresight; and the circumstances under which they are placed go far to preclude the expectation of their being considerably improved. Unnecessary expenditure upon them tends merely to nourish idleness and improvidence; whereas an expenditure upon houses, ornamental grounds, works of art, and costly furniture, enriches and beautifies the country, improves the tastes and habits of the people, and contributes to the progress of civilization.

Edition: current; Page: [360]