« AnteriorContinuar »
their time, which was employed on other labor, would be of comparatively small value; and they, by attending to other business, would lose the skilí which complete division of labor confers; and which is one of its principal benefits. The case is still stronger, if we take into view the fact, that division of labor supposes a large investment of fixed capital, and that those who are educated to any manufacturing business, can rarely employ themselves upon any thing else. If the laborers at any of our manufactories were employed only half the time, their wages must be doubled ; for their families must be supported, one day as well as another, and thus the interest of the whole investment must be charged upon half the quantity of product. These causes, together with the loss of skill in workmen, would more than double the price of products, and would, of necessity, carry back the division of labor to its less perfect state.
But this demand must depend upon several circumstances. The most important of these are the following:
1. The number of the consumers. When the number of inhabitants is small, as in a newly settled country, or in an isolated situation, the demand must, of course, correspond to their number. One hundred men will require but one tenth as many hats or shoes as one thousand men. It is on this account that wealth accumulates most rapidly on navigable waters, because the market of the producers is not limited to themselves, but may be easily extended to other places.
2. By the wealth of the inhabitants. Demand does not signify simple desire for an article, but desire for it, combined with the ability and willingness to give for it what will remunerate the producer. Hence, the greater the ability, in a given population, to remunerate the producer, the greater will be the demand. The demand for hats, in a population of one thousand men, would be limited to those persons in that population who were able to buy a hat. The larger the proportion of such individuals, the better it would be for the hatter, and for every other producer. Hence we see, that every individual is interested in the prosperity of every other individual in the community.
3. By the cost of the article. The greater the cost of the product, the smaller will be the number of persons who are able to purchase it. Hence, the less will be the demand; and hence, also, the less opportunity will there be for division of labor. And, besides, the greater the cost of the article, the greater amount of capital is required in order to produce it by division of labor. Hence, this cause operates in two ways to prevent the employment of this means of effecting the reduction of price. Thus, if a community consist of one thousand men, and of these, one hundred be worth one thousand dollars per year; four hundred be worth five hundred dollars; and the remainder be worth but two hundred and fifty dollars per year; and an article be produced within the reach of only the first of these classes, it can have but one hundred purchasers; if it come within the reach of the second class, it will have five hundred ; and if it come within the reach of the third class, it will have one thousand purchasers. Hence it is, that division of labor is but sparingly used in the manufacture of rich jewelry, and in articles of expensive luxury; while it is so universally used in the production of all articles of common use. Hence we see, that the benefits of the use of natural agents and of division of labor, are vastly greater and more important to the middling and lower classes, than to the rich. These means of increased production, reduce the cost of the necessaries and of the essential conveniences of life to the lowest rate, and, of course, bring them, as far as possible, within the reach of all.
4. By facilities of transportation. This is evident, from what has been said. The cost of an article depends not only on the cost of its original production, but also upon the cost necessary to bring it to the consumer. Coal
very cheap at a coal mine, but if it must be borne on the shoulders of men to the consumer, it would, at a few miles from the mine, become so dear, that no one would be able to use it. The demand would be so small, that there would be no profit either in investing capital in the machinery, or in employing division of labor to raise it from the mine. But if horses be used to transport it to the consumer, the demand will increase. Again, if, for horses, canals and railroads be substituted, it will become cheap, and the demand will increase still more ; and, with every such improvement, that circle of consumption expands, of which the mine is the centre. The same principle applies to manufactures, specially those of iron or heavy ware, and it applies just in proportion as transportation forms a large or small part of the cost to the consumer. And thus, in general, we see the principle on which facilities for internal communication improve the condition of both the other branches of industry. For this reason, the price of land and grain, rises in a district through which a canal or a railroad passes ; and, for the same reason, manusactories may at one time be successfully established in situations where they at another time would have been useless, if not ruinous to the proprietor. And, still more generally, we see the manner in which all the branches of labor assist each other. A railroad or a canal can never profitably be constructed in a country where there is nothing to be transported. But where agriculture, manufactures, and commerce are productive, and hence require a large amount of transportation, there, these facilities are immediately in demand. Were Liverpool and Manchester to decline, of what use would be the railroad between them ? And, on the other hand, the railroad between them, by reducing the cost of all articles bought and sold, diminishes the cost of living in both places, enables the producer
to come into market with greater advantages, increases the profit in all kinds of industry, facilitates the accumulation of capital, and thus adds greatly to the annual revenue of both cities.
II. I have thus far considered the division of labor as it exists among the inhabitants of the same place, and in the same situation. The same principle, however, applies to people of different districts. Here it is not merely a matter of choice, but, in a great measure, of necessity; that is, it is required by the very conditions of our being.
It is manifest, that the different portions of the same country possess different facilities for producing the objects of human desire. No district possesses advantages for producing every thing; but almost every district possesses peculiar facilities for producing something. Now, natural advantages are clearly nothing more than means of increased productiveness of labor in the creation of any particular product. If one soil will produce forty bushels of wheat to the acre, with the same labor that another will produce twenty, the labor upon the first is twice as productive as that upon the second ; that is, the owner of the one has a machine by which he can, with the same labor, produce twice as much as his neighbor. But perhaps the soil which will produce only twenty bushels of wheat, will produce forty bushels of corn per acre, while the other soil will produce only twenty. This second soil is, therefore, an instrument which gives a double productiveness to labor in the raising of corn. Now, it is manifest, that if each one devotes himself to the production of that for which nature has given him peculiar facilities, his amount of production will be greater, he will himself be richer, and the whole community will be supplied at a diminished cost. Suppose that each occupied twenty acres, and each produced the crop for which he had the greater advantages; the result would be 20 X 40=800 of wheat, and the same of corn; =800 bushels of wheat and 800 of corn.
Suppose, again, they divided their crops, and each appropriated ten acres to wheat and ten to corn; the result would be, 10x40=400 of wheat, and 10X20 =200 of corn; and 10X40=400 of corn, and 10X 20=200 of wheat ; that is 600 of wheat and 600 of corn; that is, there would be 600 instead of 800 bushels of each raised, and the loss to both, and to the community, would be 200 bushels of each a year. By so much would they both be poorer than by devoting themselves wholly to that product for which each had the greatest natural advantages.
Or, to take another case. Suppose one district rich in soil, and adapted to the production of wheat, but level and far inland, and, therefore, unadapted, by position, and want of the proper natural agents, to the production of manufactures; and another district, on the sea-board, hilly and sterile, adapted to manufactures, but unadapted to the culture of wheat. On the first, with one day's labor, a man may raise two bushels of wheat; but could produce but four yards of cloth. On the other, by the same labor, a man can produce twelve yards of cloth, but can raise but one bushel of wheat. Now, it is manifest, that by each district's devoting its labor to that kind of production, for which it has the greatest natural facilities, the production of the whole country will be increased. It is also evident, that a man in the wheat district will provide himself with cloth at a cheaper rate, by raising wheat, and procuring cloth by exchange, than by manufacturing it himself; and on the other hand, that the manufacturer will provide himself with wheat, at a much cheaper rate, by making cloth, than by raising wheat himself. Thus, by this form of division of labor, the productive power of both is increased; their desires are gratified at the expense of less labor; and thus, both are rendered richer and happier.
All this seems obvious, if only the several districts of the same country be compared. And it is obvious, because every one perceives that God has be