Wages of Labor

The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompence or wages of labour. In that original state of things which precedes both the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him.

The product of labor is the natural reward, or wages, of labor. In the earliest state of things, before land became private property and capital was accumulated, workers owned everything they produced. They had no landlord or employer to share it with.

Had this state continued, the wages of labour would have augmented with all those improvements in its productive powers, to which the division of labour gives occasion. All things would gradually have become cheaper. They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labour; and as the commodities produced by equal quantities of labour would naturally in this state of things be exchanged for one another, they would have been purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity.

If this state had continued, wages would have risen with every improvement in productivity brought about by the division of labour. Everything would gradually have become cheaper. Goods would have been produced with less labour. In this state, goods produced by equal amounts of labour would naturally have been exchanged for one another. So goods would also have been purchased with the products of less labour.

But though all things would have become cheaper in reality, in appearance many things might have become dearer, than before, or have been exchanged for a greater quantity of other goods. Let us suppose, for example, that in the greater part of employments the productive powers of labour had been improved to tenfold, or that a day’s labour could produce ten times the quantity of work which it had done originally; but that in a particular employment they had been improved only to double, or that a day’s labour could produce only twice the quantity of work which it had done before. In exchanging the produce of a day’s labour in the greater part of employments for that of a day’s labour in this particular one, ten times the original quantity of work in them would purchase only twice the original quantity in it. Any particular quantity in it, therefore, a pound weight, for example, would appear to be five times dearer than before. In reality, however, it would be twice as cheap. Though it required five times the quantity of other goods to purchase it, it would require only half the quantity of labour either to purchase or to produce it. The acquisition, therefore, would be twice as easy as before.

But although everything would have become cheaper in reality, many things might have appeared more expensive than before. They might have been exchanged for a greater quantity of other goods. Suppose, for example, that in most occupations workers had become ten times as productive. A day’s labour could then produce ten times as much as it originally did. But suppose that in one particular occupation workers had become only twice as productive. A day’s labour there could produce only twice as much as before. Now suppose the product of a day’s labour in most occupations was exchanged for that of a day’s labour in this particular occupation. Ten times the original quantity of goods from most occupations would buy only twice the original quantity from the particular occupation. Any given quantity from that occupation, a pound in weight, for example, would therefore appear five times as expensive as before. In reality, however, it would be half as expensive. Although it would take five times as much of other goods to buy it, it would take only half as much labour to buy or produce it. Getting it would therefore be twice as easy as before.

But this original state of things, in which the labourer enjoyed the whole produce of his own labour, could not last beyond the first introduction of the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock. It was at an end, therefore, long before the most considerable improvements were made in the productive powers of labour; and it would be to no purpose to trace further what might have been its effects upon the recompence or wages of labour.

But this original state, in which workers received the whole product of their labor, could not last. It ended as soon as land became privately owned and capital began to accumulate. So it ended long before the greatest improvements in the productivity of labor. There is therefore no point in considering further what effects it might have had on workers’ pay or wages.

As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land.

As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost everything the worker grows or gathers from it. Rent is the first deduction from what labor on the land produces.

It seldom happens that the person who tills the ground has wherewithal to maintain himself till he reaps the harvest. His maintenance is generally advanced to him from the stock of a master, the farmer who employs him, and who would have no interest to employ him, unless he was to share in the produce of his labour, or unless his stock was to be replaced to him with a profit. This profit makes a second deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land.

The person who works the land rarely has enough to live on until the harvest. The farmer who employs him generally pays for his living expenses in advance, out of his own capital. The farmer would have no reason to employ him unless he received a share of the worker’s produce. In other words, the farmer must recover his capital with a profit. This profit is a second deduction from what labor on the land produces.

The produce of almost all other labour is liable to the like deduction of profit. In all arts and manufactures, the greater part of the workmen stand in need of a master, to advance them the materials of their work, and their wages and maintenance, till it be completed. He shares in the produce of their labour, or in the value which it adds to the materials upon which it is bestowed; and in this share consists his profit.

The product of almost all other labor is subject to the same deduction for profit. In all trades and manufacturing, most workers need a master to supply their materials, wages, and living expenses until their work is complete. The master takes a share of what they produce, or of the value their labor adds to the materials. This share is his profit.

It sometimes happens, indeed, that a single independent workman has stock sufficient both to purchase the materials of his work, and to maintain himself till it be completed. He is both master and workman, and enjoys the whole produce of his own labour, or the whole value which it adds to the materials upon which it is bestowed. It includes what are usually two distinct revenues, belonging to two distinct persons, the profits of stock, and the wages of labour.

Sometimes, an independent worker has enough capital to buy materials and support himself until the work is complete. He is both employer and worker, and receives the whole product of his labor. In other words, he receives the full value his labor adds to the materials. This includes what are usually two separate incomes belonging to two different people: profits from capital and wages for labor.

Such cases, however, are not very frequent; and in every part of Europe twenty workmen serve under a master for one that is independent, and the wages of labour are everywhere understood to be, what they usually are, when the labourer is one person, and the owner of the stock which employs him another.

Such cases, however, are not very common. In every part of Europe, twenty workers serve under an employer for every one who is independent. Everywhere, wages are understood to mean what workers usually earn when someone else owns the capital that employs them.

What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little, as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower, the wages of labour.

Everywhere, ordinary wages depend on the usual agreement between two parties whose interests are far from the same. Workers want to get as much as possible, while employers want to pay as little as possible. Workers tend to join together to raise wages, while employers tend to join together to lower them.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment. In the long run, the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

It is not hard to foresee which side will usually have the advantage in these disputes and force the other to accept its terms. Employers are fewer in number, so they can unite much more easily. The law also allows, or at least does not prohibit, employers from uniting, while it prohibits workers from doing so. There are no acts of Parliament against uniting to lower wages, but many against uniting to raise them. In all such disputes, employers can hold out much longer. A landlord, farmer, manufacturer, or merchant could generally live for a year or two on wealth already acquired, even without employing a single worker. Many workers could not survive a week without employment. Few could survive a month, and hardly any could survive a year. In the long run, the worker may be as necessary to the employer as the employer is to the worker. But the employer's need is not so immediate.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and, one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen, who sometimes, too, without any provocation of this kind, combine, of their own accord, to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions, sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The masters, upon these occasions, are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing but the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders.

It has been said that we rarely hear of employers joining together, though we often hear of workers doing so. But anyone who therefore imagines that employers rarely join together knows little about either the world or the subject. Employers are always and everywhere united by a kind of unspoken but constant and consistent agreement. They agree not to raise wages above their current level. Breaking this agreement is everywhere a highly unpopular act. Other employers in the area regard it as a disgrace. We rarely hear of this agreement because it is the usual, one might say natural, state of things. No one ever hears about that. Employers also sometimes make particular agreements to lower wages below their current level. They always carry out these agreements in utmost silence and secrecy until the moment they take effect. Sometimes the workers give in without resistance. Though they feel the cuts severely, no one else ever hears of them. Often, however, workers join together to resist such agreements. Sometimes, too, they join together on their own to raise the price of their labor, without any such provocation. Their usual reasons are sometimes the high price of food and sometimes the great profits employers make from their work. But whether workers act to gain ground or to defend themselves, their actions are always widely heard of. To bring matters to a quick decision, workers always resort to the loudest protests. Sometimes they resort to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and they act with the folly and excess of desperate men. They must either starve or frighten their employers into immediately meeting their demands. On these occasions, employers are just as loud on the other side. They never stop calling for help from the civil authorities. They demand strict enforcement of the laws passed so harshly against servants, laborers, and journeymen joining together. Workers, therefore, very rarely gain anything from the violence of these turbulent actions. The civil authorities intervene, and employers hold out more steadily. Most workers must also submit in order to survive from day to day. As a result, these actions generally end in nothing but punishment or ruin for the leaders.

But though, in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate, below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.

Employers generally have the advantage in disputes with their workers. But even for the lowest kind of labor, there seems to be a minimum ordinary wage. It seems impossible to keep wages below that level for any considerable time.

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself: But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above-mentioned, or any other, I shall not take upon me to determine.

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must be enough to support him. In most cases, they must be somewhat more. Otherwise, he could not raise a family, and workers like him could not survive beyond the first generation. For this reason, Mr Cantillon seems to suppose that the lowest-paid common laborers must everywhere earn at least twice what they need to support themselves. On average, this would enable them to raise two children. He supposes that a wife's work is only enough to support herself, because she must also care for the children. But it is estimated that half of all children born die before reaching adulthood. According to this account, the poorest laborers must therefore try to raise at least four children. On average, this would give two children an equal chance of reaching adulthood. But the support that four children need is supposed to cost nearly as much as that of one man. The same author adds that the labor of an able-bodied slave is estimated to be worth twice what it costs to support him. He thinks the labor of the lowest-paid worker cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. At least this much seems certain. To raise a family, a husband and wife must be able to earn more than they need to support themselves. This must be true even in the lowest-paid kinds of common labor. But I will not presume to decide how much more they must earn, whether it is the amount mentioned above or some other amount.

There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate, evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity.

Some circumstances, however, give workers an advantage. They allow workers to raise their wages considerably above this rate, which is clearly the lowest consistent with basic humanity.

When in any country the demand for those who live by wages, labourers, journeymen, servants of every kind, is continually increasing; when every year furnishes employment for a greater number than had been employed the year before, the workmen have no occasion to combine in order to raise their wages. The scarcity of hands occasions a competition among masters, who bid against one another in order to get workmen, and thus voluntarily break through the natural combination of masters not to raise wages. The demand for those who live by wages, it is evident, cannot increase but in proportion to the increase of the funds which are destined to the payment of wages. These funds are of two kinds, first, the revenue which is over and above what is necessary for the maintenance; and, secondly, the stock which is over and above what is necessary for the employment of their masters.

When demand for wage earners continually increases in a country, workers have no need to join together to raise their wages. Wage earners include laborers, journeymen, and servants of every kind. If each year brings employment for more workers than the year before, employers compete for scarce workers. They bid against one another to hire them. In doing so, employers voluntarily break their natural agreement not to raise wages. Demand for wage earners can clearly increase only as fast as the funds set aside to pay wages increase. These funds are of two kinds: first, income beyond what is needed for maintenance, and second, stock beyond what is needed to employ their masters.

When the landlord, annuitant, or monied man, has a greater revenue than what he judges sufficient to maintain his own family, he employs either the whole or a part of the surplus in maintaining one or more menial servants. Increase this surplus, and he will naturally increase the number of those servants.

When a landlord, annuitant, or wealthy person has more income than he thinks his family needs, he uses some or all of the surplus to support one or more domestic servants. If the surplus grows, he will naturally hire more servants.

When an independent workman, such as a weaver or shoemaker, has got more stock than what is sufficient to purchase the materials of his own work, and to maintain himself till he can dispose of it, he naturally employs one or more journeymen with the surplus, in order to make a profit by their work. Increase this surplus, and he will naturally increase the number of his journeymen.

An independent worker, such as a weaver or shoemaker, may have more money than he needs. He needs enough to buy materials for his work and support himself until he can sell what he makes. If he has more than that, he will naturally use the surplus to hire one or more workers. He does this to profit from their work. As the surplus grows, he will naturally hire more workers.

The demand for those who live by wages, therefore, necessarily increases with the increase of the revenue and stock of every country, and cannot possibly increase without it. The increase of revenue and stock is the increase of national wealth. The demand for those who live by wages, therefore, naturally increases with the increase of national wealth, and cannot possibly increase without it.

The demand for people who live on wages therefore necessarily grows as a country's income and capital grow. It cannot grow without an increase in income and capital. Growth in income and capital is growth in national wealth. The demand for people who live on wages therefore naturally grows as national wealth grows. It cannot grow without an increase in national wealth.

It is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labour. It is not, accordingly, in the richest countries, but in the most thriving, or in those which are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are highest. England is certainly, in the present times, a much richer country than any part of North America. The wages of labour, however, are much higher in North America than in any part of England. In the province of New York, common labourers earned in 1773, before the commencement of the late disturbances, three shillings and sixpence currency, equal to two shillings sterling, a-day; ship-carpenters, ten shillings and sixpence currency, with a pint of rum, worth sixpence sterling, equal in all to six shillings and sixpence sterling; house-carpenters and bricklayers, eight shillings currency, equal to four shillings and sixpence sterling; journeymen tailors, five shillings currency, equal to about two shillings and tenpence sterling. These prices are all above the London price; and wages are said to be as high in the other colonies as in New York. The price of provisions is everywhere in North America much lower than in England. A dearth has never been known there. In the worst seasons they have always had a sufficiency for themselves, though less for exportation. If the money price of labour, therefore, be higher than it is anywhere in the mother-country, its real price, the real command of the necessaries and conveniencies of life which it conveys to the labourer, must be higher in a still greater proportion.

It is not the actual size of a nation’s wealth that raises wages, but its continual growth. Wages are therefore highest not in the richest countries, but in the most prosperous ones, those growing rich fastest. England is certainly much richer today than any part of North America. Yet wages are much higher in North America than anywhere in England. In 1773, before the recent disturbances began, ordinary laborers in the province of New York earned three shillings and sixpence in local currency per day. That was equal to two shillings sterling. Ship carpenters earned ten shillings and sixpence in local currency, plus a pint of rum worth sixpence sterling. Together, these were equal to six shillings and sixpence sterling. House carpenters and bricklayers earned eight shillings in local currency, equal to four shillings and sixpence sterling. Journeymen tailors earned five shillings in local currency, equal to about two shillings and tenpence sterling. All these wages are above London rates. Wages are said to be as high in the other colonies as in New York. Food is much cheaper everywhere in North America than in England. There has never been a shortage there. Even in the worst seasons, people have always had enough for themselves, though less to export. Wages paid in money are therefore higher than anywhere in the mother country. Their real value must be higher by an even greater proportion. That is, they must give workers even greater purchasing power over the necessities and comforts of life.

But though North America is not yet so rich as England, it is much more thriving, and advancing with much greater rapidity to the further acquisition of riches. The most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants. In Great Britain, and most other European countries, they are not supposed to double in less than five hundred years. In the British colonies in North America, it has been found that they double in twenty or five-and-twenty years. Nor in the present times is this increase principally owing to the continual importation of new inhabitants, but to the great multiplication of the species. Those who live to old age, it is said, frequently see there from fifty to a hundred, and sometimes many more, descendants from their own body. Labour is there so well rewarded, that a numerous family of children, instead of being a burden, is a source of opulence and prosperity to the parents. The labour of each child, before it can leave their house, is computed to be worth a hundred pounds clear gain to them. A young widow with four or five young children, who, among the middling or inferior ranks of people in Europe, would have so little chance for a second husband, is there frequently courted as a sort of fortune. The value of children is the greatest of all encouragements to marriage. We cannot, therefore, wonder that the people in North America should generally marry very young. Notwithstanding the great increase occasioned by such early marriages, there is a continual complaint of the scarcity of hands in North America. The demand for labourers, the funds destined for maintaining them increase, it seems, still faster than they can find labourers to employ.

Although North America is not yet as rich as England, it is much more prosperous and gaining wealth much faster. The clearest sign of a country's prosperity is an increase in its population. In Great Britain and most other European countries, the population is not thought to double in less than five hundred years. In the British colonies in North America, it has been found to double in twenty or twenty-five years. Today, this increase is not mainly due to the continued arrival of new inhabitants. It is due to the high birth rate. People who live to old age there, it is said, often see fifty to a hundred descendants, and sometimes many more. Labor is so well rewarded there that many children are a source of wealth and prosperity to their parents, not a burden. Before each child can leave home, their labor is estimated to be worth a clear gain of a hundred pounds to their parents. In Europe, a young widow with four or five young children would have little chance of finding a second husband among the middle or lower classes. In North America, such a widow is often courted as though she were a fortune. The value of children is the greatest encouragement to marriage. We should not be surprised, then, that people in North America generally marry very young. Despite the great population increase caused by such early marriages, people in North America constantly complain about a shortage of workers. The demand for workers and the funds set aside to pay them seem to grow even faster than workers can be found to employ.

Though the wealth of a country should be very great, yet if it has been long stationary, we must not expect to find the wages of labour very high in it. The funds destined for the payment of wages, the revenue and stock of its inhabitants, may be of the greatest extent; but if they have continued for several centuries of the same, or very nearly of the same extent, the number of labourers employed every year could easily supply, and even more than supply, the number wanted the following year. There could seldom be any scarcity of hands, nor could the masters be obliged to bid against one another in order to get them. The hands, on the contrary, would, in this case, naturally multiply beyond their employment. There would be a constant scarcity of employment, and the labourers would be obliged to bid against one another in order to get it. If in such a country the wages of labour had ever been more than sufficient to maintain the labourer, and to enable him to bring up a family, the competition of the labourers and the interest of the masters would soon reduce them to the lowest rate which is consistent with common humanity. China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous, countries in the world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times. It had, perhaps, even long before his time, acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its laws and institutions permits it to acquire. The accounts of all travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their work-houses for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their services, and, as it were, begging employment. The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton, many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing-boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty, that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns, several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence.

Even if a country is very wealthy, we should not expect high wages if its wealth has long remained unchanged. The funds available to pay wages, the income and capital of its inhabitants, may be enormous. But they may have remained the same, or nearly the same, for several centuries. In that case, the workers employed each year could easily supply, or even more than supply, the number needed the next year. Workers would rarely be scarce, and employers would not have to bid against one another to hire them. On the contrary, workers would naturally multiply beyond the number of jobs available. Jobs would always be scarce, and workers would have to bid against one another to get them. Suppose wages in such a country had once been more than enough to support a worker and raise a family. Competition among workers and the interests of employers would soon reduce wages. They would fall to the lowest rate consistent with common humanity. China has long been one of the richest countries in the world. That is, it has been one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous. Yet its wealth seems to have been unchanged for a long time. Marco Polo visited China more than five hundred years ago. He describes its cultivation, industry, and population in almost the same terms as travelers today. Perhaps even long before his time, China had acquired all the wealth its laws and institutions allowed it to acquire. Travelers' accounts differ in many other respects, but all agree on two points. Wages are low, and a worker in China finds it difficult to raise a family. A worker is content if he can dig the ground all day and earn enough to buy a little rice that evening. The condition of craftspeople is, if possible, even worse. In Europe, they wait idly in their workshops for customers to call on them. In China, they constantly run through the streets with the tools of their trades. They offer their services and, in effect, beg for work. The poverty of the lower ranks in China is far greater than that of the poorest nations in Europe. Near Canton, many hundreds of families have no home on land. It is commonly said that many thousands live this way. They live permanently in small fishing boats on the rivers and canals. The food they find there is so scarce that they eagerly fish out the filthiest garbage thrown overboard from European ships. Any carrion, such as the carcass of a dead dog or cat, is welcome to them. Even if it is half rotten and stinking, it is as welcome as the most wholesome food is to people elsewhere. Marriage is encouraged in China, not because children are profitable, but because people are free to kill them. In all large towns, several children are abandoned in the streets every night, or drowned like puppies in the water. Some people are even said to make their living openly by carrying out this horrible task.

China, however, though it may, perhaps, stand still, does not seem to go backwards. Its towns are nowhere deserted by their inhabitants. The lands which had once been cultivated, are nowhere neglected. The same, or very nearly the same, annual labour, must, therefore, continue to be performed, and the funds destined for maintaining it must not, consequently, be sensibly diminished. The lowest class of labourers, therefore, notwithstanding their scanty subsistence, must some way or another make shift to continue their race so far as to keep up their usual numbers.

China, however, may be standing still, but it does not seem to be going backward. Its towns have not been deserted by their inhabitants. Land that was once cultivated has not been neglected. The same amount of work, or nearly the same amount, must therefore still be done each year. The funds set aside to support that work cannot, consequently, have diminished noticeably. Therefore, despite having so little to live on, the lowest class of workers must somehow manage to have enough children to maintain their usual numbers.

But it would be otherwise in a country where the funds destined for the maintenance of labour were sensibly decaying. Every year the demand for servants and labourers would, in all the different classes of employments, be less than it had been the year before. Many who had been bred in the superior classes, not being able to find employment in their own business, would be glad to seek it in the lowest. The lowest class being not only overstocked with its own workmen, but with the overflowings of all the other classes, the competition for employment would be so great in it, as to reduce the wages of labour to the most miserable and scanty subsistence of the labourer. Many would not be able to find employment even upon these hard terms, but would either starve, or be driven to seek a subsistence, either by begging, or by the perpetration perhaps, of the greatest enormities. Want, famine, and mortality, would immediately prevail in that class, and from thence extend themselves to all the superior classes, till the number of inhabitants in the country was reduced to what could easily be maintained by the revenue and stock which remained in it, and which had escaped either the tyranny or calamity which had destroyed the rest. This, perhaps, is nearly the present state of Bengal, and of some other of the English settlements in the East Indies. In a fertile country, which had before been much depopulated, where subsistence, consequently, should not be very difficult, and where, notwithstanding, three or four hundred thousand people die of hunger in one year, we may be assured that the funds destined for the maintenance of the labouring poor are fast decaying. The difference between the genius of the British constitution, which protects and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot, perhaps, be better illustrated than by the different state of those countries.

But the situation would be different in a country where the funds available to support workers were noticeably declining. Every year, demand for servants and laborers would fall in every kind of employment. Many trained in higher occupations would be unable to find work in their own fields. They would be glad to seek work in the lowest occupations. Those occupations would already have too many workers of their own, as well as the overflow from all the others. Competition for jobs would therefore be so great that wages would fall to a level barely enough for miserable survival. Many would be unable to find work even on these harsh terms. They would either starve or be driven to support themselves by begging or perhaps committing the worst crimes. Poverty, famine, and death would immediately spread among these workers, and from there to all the higher classes. This would continue until the population fell to a number that the country's remaining income and capital could easily support. These would be the resources that had escaped the tyranny or disaster that destroyed the rest. This, perhaps, is close to the present state of Bengal and some other English settlements in the East Indies. Bengal is a fertile country whose population had already been greatly reduced. Food should therefore not be very difficult to obtain. Yet three or four hundred thousand people die of hunger there in one year. We can be sure, then, that the funds available to support the working poor are rapidly declining. The different conditions in these countries may be the best illustration of a contrast. It is the contrast between the spirit of the British constitution, which protects and governs North America, and that of the trading company, which oppresses and dominates the East Indies.

The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards.

Therefore, generous wages are both a necessary result and a natural sign of growing national wealth. On the other hand, when the working poor have little to live on, national wealth is naturally at a standstill. When they are starving, it is rapidly declining.

In Great Britain, the wages of labour seem, in the present times, to be evidently more than what is precisely necessary to enable the labourer to bring up a family. In order to satisfy ourselves upon this point, it will not be necessary to enter into any tedious or doubtful calculation of what may be the lowest sum upon which it is possible to do this. There are many plain symptoms, that the wages of labour are nowhere in this country regulated by this lowest rate, which is consistent with common humanity.

In Great Britain today, wages seem clearly higher than what a worker needs to raise a family. To see this, we need not make a tedious or uncertain calculation of the lowest amount on which a worker could possibly do so. Many clear signs show that nowhere in this country are wages set at this bare minimum consistent with basic humanity.

First, in almost every part of Great Britain there is a distinction, even in the lowest species of labour, between summer and winter wages. Summer wages are always highest. But, on account of the extraordinary expense of fuel, the maintenance of a family is most expensive in winter. Wages, therefore, being highest when this expense is lowest, it seems evident that they are not regulated by what is necessary for this expense, but by the quantity and supposed value of the work. A labourer, it may be said, indeed, ought to save part of his summer wages, in order to defray his winter expense; and that, through the whole year, they do not exceed what is necessary to maintain his family through the whole year. A slave, however, or one absolutely dependent on us for immediate subsistence, would not be treated in this manner. His daily subsistence would be proportioned to his daily necessities.

First, almost everywhere in Great Britain, even the lowest kinds of labor pay different wages in summer and winter. Summer wages are always higher. But supporting a family costs more in winter because of the extra expense of fuel. Wages are therefore highest when this expense is lowest. This suggests that wages are not set by what a family needs to cover this expense. Instead, they are set by the amount of work done and its presumed value. One might say that a laborer should save part of his summer wages to cover his winter expenses. One might also say that his wages for the whole year do not exceed what his family needs for that year. But a slave, or someone completely dependent on us for immediate subsistence, would not be treated this way. His daily subsistence would be matched to his daily needs.

Secondly, the wages of labour do not, in Great Britain, fluctuate with the price of provisions. These vary everywhere from year to year, frequently from month to month. But in many places, the money price of labour remains uniformly the same, sometimes for half a century together. If, in these places, therefore, the labouring poor can maintain their families in dear years, they must be at their ease in times of moderate plenty, and in affluence in those of extraordinary cheapness. The high price of provisions during these ten years past, has not, in many parts of the kingdom, been accompanied with any sensible rise in the money price of labour. It has, indeed, in some; owing, probably, more to the increase of the demand for labour, than to that of the price of provisions.

Second, wages in Great Britain do not rise and fall with food prices. Food prices vary everywhere from year to year, and often from month to month. But in many places, wages remain the same in money terms, sometimes for half a century. If poor workers in these places can support their families when food is expensive, they must live comfortably when food is moderately plentiful. And when food is exceptionally cheap, they must live in abundance. Over the past ten years, food prices have been high. Yet in many parts of the kingdom, wages have not risen noticeably in money terms. Wages have risen in some places. This is probably due more to increased demand for labour than to higher food prices.

Thirdly, as the price of provisions varies more from year to year than the wages of labour, so, on the other hand, the wages of labour vary more from place to place than the price of provisions. The prices of bread and butchers’ meat are generally the same, or very nearly the same, through the greater part of the united kingdom. These, and most other things which are sold by retail, the way in which the labouring poor buy all things, are generally fully as cheap, or cheaper, in great towns than in the remoter parts of the country, for reasons which I shall have occasion to explain hereafter. But the wages of labour in a great town and its neighbourhood are frequently a fourth or a fifth part, twenty or five-and—twenty per cent. higher than at a few miles distance. Eighteen pence a day may be reckoned the common price of labour in London and its neighbourhood. At a few miles distance, it falls to fourteen and fifteen pence. Tenpence may be reckoned its price in Edinburgh and its neighbourhood. At a few miles distance, it falls to eightpence, the usual price of common labour through the greater part of the low country of Scotland, where it varies a good deal less than in England. Such a difference of prices, which, it seems, is not always sufficient to transport a man from one parish to another, would necessarily occasion so great a transportation of the most bulky commodities, not only from one parish to another, but from one end of the kingdom, almost from one end of the world to the other, as would soon reduce them more nearly to a level. After all that has been said of the levity and inconstancy of human nature, it appears evidently from experience, that man is, of all sorts of luggage, the most difficult to be transported. If the labouring poor, therefore, can maintain their families in those parts of the kingdom where the price of labour is lowest, they must be in affluence where it is highest.

Thirdly, food prices vary more from year to year than wages do. But wages vary more from place to place than food prices do. Bread and meat prices are generally the same, or nearly the same, throughout most of the United Kingdom. These and most other goods sold at retail are generally as cheap, or cheaper, in large towns than in remote parts of the country. The working poor buy everything at retail. I will explain the reasons for these prices later. But wages in and around a large town are often a fourth or a fifth higher than a few miles away. That is, they are 20 or 25 percent higher. Eighteen pence a day may be considered the usual wage in and around London. A few miles away, it falls to fourteen or fifteen pence. Tenpence may be considered the usual wage in and around Edinburgh. A few miles away, it falls to eightpence. That is the usual wage for ordinary labour throughout most of the lowlands of Scotland. Wages there vary much less than in England. Such a difference in wages is apparently not always enough to make a man move from one parish to another. Yet a similar difference in prices would necessarily cause even the bulkiest goods to be transported in great quantities. They would be moved not only between parishes but from one end of the kingdom to the other, or almost from one end of the world to the other. This trade would soon bring their prices closer together. Despite all that has been said about the fickleness and inconstancy of human nature, experience clearly shows that man is the hardest of all kinds of luggage to transport. If the working poor can support their families where wages are lowest, they must therefore live in affluence where wages are highest.

Fourthly, the variations in the price of labour not only do not correspond, either in place or time, with those in the price of provisions, but they are frequently quite opposite.

Fourthly, changes in wages do not match changes in food prices, either by place or by time. In fact, they often move in opposite directions.

Grain, the food of the common people, is dearer in Scotland than in England, whence Scotland receives almost every year very large supplies. But English corn must be sold dearer in Scotland, the country to which it is brought, than in England, the country from which it comes; and in proportion to its quality it cannot be sold dearer in Scotland than the Scotch corn that comes to the same market in competition with it. The quality of grain depends chiefly upon the quantity of flour or meal which it yields at the mill; and, in this respect, English grain is so much superior to the Scotch, that though often dearer in appearance, or in proportion to the measure of its bulk, it is generally cheaper in reality, or in proportion to its quality, or even to the measure of its weight. The price of labour, on the contrary, is dearer in England than in Scotland. If the labouring poor, therefore, can maintain their families in the one part of the united kingdom, they must be in affluence in the other. Oatmeal, indeed, supplies the common people in Scotland with the greatest and the best part of their food, which is, in general, much inferior to that of their neighbours of the same rank in England. This difference, however, in the mode of their subsistence, is not the cause, but the effect, of the difference in their wages; though, by a strange misapprehension, I have frequently heard it represented as the cause. It is not because one man keeps a coach, while his neighbour walks a-foot, that the one is rich, and the other poor; but because the one is rich, he keeps a coach, and because the other is poor, he walks a-foot.

Grain, the food of ordinary people, costs more in Scotland than in England. Scotland receives very large supplies of grain from England almost every year. But English grain must sell for more in Scotland, where it is brought, than in England, where it comes from. And, for its quality, it cannot sell for more than Scottish grain competing in the same market. The quality of grain depends chiefly on how much flour or meal it yields at the mill. By this measure, English grain is far superior to Scottish grain. It often appears more expensive by volume, but it is generally cheaper for its quality, or even by weight. Wages, on the other hand, are higher in England than in Scotland. So if poor workers can support their families in one part of the united kingdom, they must be well off in the other. In Scotland, oatmeal does provide ordinary people with most of their food, and the best part of it. Their food is generally much inferior to that of their English neighbors of the same rank. This difference in diet, however, is not the cause of the difference in wages. It is the result, though I have often heard people mistakenly present it as the cause. One man is not rich because he keeps a carriage, while his neighbor is poor because he walks. Rather, the one keeps a carriage because he is rich, and the other walks because he is poor.

During the course of the last century, taking one year with another, grain was dearer in both parts of the united kingdom than during that of the present. This is a matter of fact which cannot now admit of any reasonable doubt; and the proof of it is, if possible, still more decisive with regard to Scotland than with regard to England. It is in Scotland supported by the evidence of the public fiars, annual valuations made upon oath, according to the actual state of the markets, of all the different sorts of grain in every different county of Scotland. If such direct proof could require any collateral evidence to confirm it, I would observe, that this has likewise been the case in France, and probably in most other parts of Europe. With regard to France, there is the clearest proof. But though it is certain, that in both parts of the united kingdom grain was somewhat dearer in the last century than in the present, it is equally certain that labour was much cheaper. If the labouring poor, therefore, could bring up their families then, they must be much more at their ease now. In the last century, the most usual day-wages of common labour through the greater part of Scotland were sixpence in summer, and fivepence in winter. Three shillings a-week, the same price, very nearly still continues to be paid in some parts of the Highlands and Western islands. Through the greater part of the Low country, the most usual wages of common labour are now eight pence a-day; tenpence, sometimes a shilling, about Edinburgh, in the counties which border upon England, probably on account of that neighbourhood, and in a few other places where there has lately been a considerable rise in the demand for labour, about Glasgow, Carron, Ayrshire, etc. In England, the improvements of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, began much earlier than in Scotland. The demand for labour, and consequently its price, must necessarily have increased with those improvements. In the last century, accordingly, as well as in the present, the wages of labour were higher in England than in Scotland. They have risen, too, considerably since that time, though, on account of the greater variety of wages paid there in different places, it is more difficult to ascertain how much. In 1614, the pay of a foot soldier was the same as in the present times, eightpence a-day. When it was first established, it would naturally be regulated by the usual wages of common labourers, the rank of people from which foot soldiers are commonly drawn. Lord-chief-justice Hales, who wrote in the time of Charles II. computes the necessary expense of a labourer’s family, consisting of six persons, the father and mother, two children able to do something, and two not able, at ten shillings a-week, or twenty-six pounds a-year. If they cannot earn this by their labour, they must make it up, he supposes, either by begging or stealing. He appears to have enquired very carefully into this subject {See his scheme for the maintenance of the poor, in Burn’s History of the Poor Laws.}. In 1688, Mr Gregory King, whose skill in political arithmetic is so much extolled by Dr Davenant, computed the ordinary income of labourers and out-servants to be fifteen pounds a-year to a family, which he supposed to consist, one with another, of three and a half persons. His calculation, therefore, though different in appearance, corresponds very nearly at bottom with that of Judge Hales. Both suppose the weekly expense of such families to be about twenty-pence a-head. Both the pecuniary income and expense of such families have increased considerably since that time through the greater part of the kingdom, in some places more, and in some less, though perhaps scarce anywhere so much as some exaggerated accounts of the present wages of labour have lately represented them to the public. The price of labour, it must be observed, cannot be ascertained very accurately anywhere, different prices being often paid at the same place and for the same sort of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the workman, but according to the easiness or hardness of the masters. Where wages are not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine is, what are the most usual; and experience seems to shew that law can never regulate them properly, though it has often pretended to do so.

Over the last century, grain was more expensive on average in both parts of the united kingdom than it has been in the present century. This fact can no longer be reasonably doubted. The proof is, if anything, even more decisive for Scotland than for England. In Scotland, it is supported by the public fiars. These are annual valuations made under oath, based on actual market conditions, for every kind of grain in every Scottish county. If such direct proof needs further support, I would note that the same has been true in France and probably in most other parts of Europe. For France, the proof is absolutely clear. Although grain was somewhat more expensive in both parts of the united kingdom in the last century, labour was certainly much cheaper. If the working poor could raise their families then, they must be much better off now. In the last century, ordinary labourers in most of Scotland usually earned sixpence a day in summer and fivepence in winter. Three shillings a week, nearly the same amount, is still paid in some parts of the Highlands and Western islands. In most of the Lowlands, ordinary labourers now usually earn eightpence a day. They earn tenpence, and sometimes a shilling, around Edinburgh and in the counties bordering England, probably because of their proximity to England. They earn the same in a few other places where demand for labour has recently risen considerably, including the areas around Glasgow, Carron, and Ayrshire. In England, agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce began to improve much earlier than in Scotland. Demand for labour, and therefore its price, must have increased along with those improvements. Accordingly, wages were higher in England than in Scotland in both the last century and the present one. They have also risen considerably since the last century. But wages vary more from place to place in England, so it is harder to determine how much they have risen. In 1614, a foot soldier was paid eightpence a day, the same as today. When that rate was first set, it would naturally have been based on the usual wages of ordinary labourers. Foot soldiers are commonly drawn from that class of people. Lord Chief Justice Hales, who wrote during the reign of Charles II, estimated the necessary expenses of a labourer's family at ten shillings a week, or twenty-six pounds a year. The family consisted of six people: a father and mother, two children able to do some work, and two who could not. He supposed that if they could not earn this amount through their work, they would have to make up the difference by begging or stealing. He appears to have studied the subject very carefully {See his scheme for the maintenance of the poor in Burn's History of the Poor Laws.}. In 1688, Mr Gregory King estimated the ordinary income of labourers and out-servants at fifteen pounds a year per family. Dr Davenant highly praised King's skill in political arithmetic. King assumed that these families had an average of three and a half members. So, although his calculation looks different from Judge Hales's, it amounts to nearly the same thing. Both estimate the weekly expenses of such families at about twenty pence per person. Both the money income and the expenses of such families have risen considerably since then in most of the kingdom, more in some places than in others. Yet perhaps almost nowhere have they risen as much as some exaggerated accounts of current wages have recently led the public to believe. It must be noted that the price of labour cannot be determined very accurately anywhere. Different rates are often paid in the same place for the same kind of work. These differences depend not only on the workers' abilities but also on whether their employers are generous or hard to deal with. Where wages are not regulated by law, we can only hope to determine the most usual rates. Experience seems to show that the law can never regulate wages properly, though it has often claimed to do so.

The real recompence of labour, the real quantity of the necessaries and conveniencies of life which it can procure to the labourer, has, during the course of the present century, increased perhaps in a still greater proportion than its money price. Not only grain has become somewhat cheaper, but many other things, from which the industrious poor derive an agreeable and wholesome variety of food, have become a great deal cheaper. Potatoes, for example, do not at present, through the greater part of the kingdom, cost half the price which they used to do thirty or forty years ago. The same thing may be said of turnips, carrots, cabbages; things which were formerly never raised but by the spade, but which are now commonly raised by the plough. All sort of garden stuff, too, has become cheaper. The greater part of the apples, and even of the onions, consumed in Great Britain, were, in the last century, imported from Flanders. The great improvements in the coarser manufactories of both linen and woollen cloth furnish the labourers with cheaper and better clothing; and those in the manufactories of the coarser metals, with cheaper and better instruments of trade, as well as with many agreeable and convenient pieces of household furniture. Soap, salt, candles, leather, and fermented liquors, have, indeed, become a good deal dearer, chiefly from the taxes which have been laid upon them. The quantity of these, however, which the labouring poor are under any necessity of consuming, is so very small, that the increase in their price does not compensate the diminution in that of so many other things. The common complaint, that luxury extends itself even to the lowest ranks of the people, and that the labouring poor will not now be contented with the same food, clothing, and lodging, which satisfied them in former times, may convince us that it is not the money price of labour only, but its real recompence, which has augmented.

The real reward for labor has increased during the present century. The necessities and comforts a worker can buy have perhaps increased even more than wages in money. Grain has become somewhat cheaper. Many other foods that give the working poor a pleasant and healthy variety have become much cheaper. For example, potatoes now cost less than half what they did thirty or forty years ago throughout most of the kingdom. The same is true of turnips, carrots, and cabbages. These were once grown only by digging with a spade, but they are now commonly grown using a plow. All kinds of garden produce have become cheaper too. In the last century, most of the apples and even the onions consumed in Great Britain were imported from Flanders. Great improvements in the manufacture of coarse linen and woolen cloth provide workers with cheaper and better clothing. Improvements in the manufacture of coarse metals provide them with cheaper and better tools for their trades. They also provide many pleasant and useful household furnishings. Soap, salt, candles, leather, and fermented drinks have indeed become considerably more expensive. This is chiefly because of the taxes placed on them. But the working poor need to consume so little of these goods that the price increases do not outweigh the reductions in so many other things. People commonly complain that luxury has spread even to the lowest ranks of society. They say the working poor will no longer be content with the food, clothing, and housing that satisfied them in earlier times. This complaint may convince us that wages have increased not only in money but also in their real value.

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconveniency, to the society? The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.

Should society regard this improvement in the lives of the lower classes as a benefit or a disadvantage? At first, the answer seems perfectly clear. Servants, laborers, and workers of various kinds make up the vast majority of every great society. What improves the lives of the majority can never be a disadvantage to society as a whole. Surely no society can be prosperous and happy when the vast majority of its members are poor and miserable. Besides, fairness demands that those who feed, clothe, and house everyone else receive a share of their own labor’s produce. Their share should be enough for them to be reasonably well fed, clothed, and housed themselves.

Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent, marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury, in the fair sex, while it inflames, perhaps, the passion for enjoyment, seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation.

Poverty certainly discourages marriage, but it does not always prevent it. Poverty even seems to encourage childbearing. A half-starved Highland woman often bears more than twenty children. A pampered upper-class woman, by contrast, is often unable to bear any and is usually exhausted by two or three. Infertility is very common among fashionable women but very rare among women of lower social standing. Luxury may increase women’s desire for pleasure, but it always seems to weaken their ability to bear children. It often destroys that ability altogether.

But poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced; but in so cold a soil, and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland, for a mother who has born twenty children not to have two alive. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that, so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes, from all the soldiers’ children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places, one half the children die before they are four years of age, in many places before they are seven, and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity. In foundling hospitals, and among the children brought up by parish charities, the mortality is still greater than among those of the common people.

But although poverty does not prevent people from having children, it makes raising them extremely difficult. The tender plant is born, but in such cold soil and harsh weather, it soon withers and dies. I have often been told that, in the Highlands of Scotland, a mother may bear twenty children and have fewer than two still alive. This is not uncommon. Several highly experienced officers have assured me that their soldiers’ children have never been enough even to supply their regiments with drummers and fifers, let alone recruits. Yet few places have more fine children than a soldiers’ barracks. It seems that very few of them reach the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places, half of all children die before age four. In many places, half die before age seven, and in almost all places, before age nine or ten. But everywhere, most of these deaths occur among the children of ordinary people. Their parents cannot afford to care for them as well as people of higher standing can. Although ordinary people generally have more children than fashionable people, a smaller proportion of their children reach adulthood. Death rates are even higher in foundling hospitals and among children raised by parish charities than among ordinary people’s children.

Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society, it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.

Every animal species naturally multiplies according to the means available to sustain it. No species can multiply beyond those means. But in civilized society, a lack of food and other necessities can limit population growth only among the lower ranks of society. It can do so only by killing a large proportion of the children born to their fruitful marriages.

The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population. If the reward should at any time be less than what was requisite for this purpose, the deficiency of hands would soon raise it; and if it should at any time be more, their excessive multiplication would soon lower it to this necessary rate. The market would be so much understocked with labour in the one case, and so much overstocked in the other, as would soon force back its price to that proper rate which the circumstances of the society required. It is in this manner that the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men, quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all the different countries of the world; in North America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether stationary in the last.

Generous wages allow workers to provide better for their children and, as a result, raise more of them. This naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It is also worth noting that generous wages necessarily do this as closely as possible in proportion to the demand for labor. If demand keeps increasing, wages must encourage workers to marry and have more children. The growing population can then supply the continually increasing demand for labor. If wages ever fell below what was needed for this purpose, the shortage of workers would soon raise them. If wages were ever higher than needed, workers would multiply too rapidly, and their numbers would soon lower wages to the necessary rate. In the first case, the labor market would have too few workers. In the second, it would have too many. Either situation would soon force wages back to the proper rate required by society’s circumstances. In this way, the demand for people, like the demand for any other commodity, necessarily regulates their production. It speeds up population growth when it is too slow and stops it when it is too fast. This demand regulates and determines the rate of population growth in all the countries of the world, including North America, Europe, and China. It makes population grow rapidly in North America, slowly and gradually in Europe, and not at all in China.

The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the expense of his master; but that of a free servant is at his own expense. The wear and tear of the latter, however, is, in reality, as much at the expense of his master as that of the former. The wages paid to journeymen and servants of every kind must be such as may enable them, one with another to continue the race of journeymen and servants, according as the increasing, diminishing, or stationary demand of the society, may happen to require. But though the wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense of his master, it generally costs him much less than that of a slave. The fund destined for replacing or repairing, if I may say so, the wear and tear of the slave, is commonly managed by a negligent master or careless overseer. That destined for performing the same office with regard to the freeman is managed by the freeman himself. The disorders which generally prevail in the economy of the rich, naturally introduce themselves into the management of the former; the strict frugality and parsimonious attention of the poor as naturally establish themselves in that of the latter. Under such different management, the same purpose must require very different degrees of expense to execute it. It appears, accordingly, from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves. It is found to do so even at Boston, New-York, and Philadelphia, where the wages of common labour are so very high.

It has been said that a slave’s wear and tear is paid for by his master, while a free servant pays for his own. In reality, though, the master pays just as much for the free servant’s wear and tear. The wages paid to journeymen and servants of every kind must enable them, on average, to raise the next generation of journeymen and servants. Their numbers must meet society’s demand, whether it is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. But though a free servant’s wear and tear is equally at his master’s expense, it generally costs him much less than a slave’s. The money set aside to replace or repair, if I may put it that way, a slave’s wear and tear is usually managed by a negligent master or careless overseer. The money set aside for the same purpose for a free man is managed by the free man himself. The disorder that generally prevails in rich people’s finances naturally finds its way into the management of the slave’s upkeep. The strict economy and careful thrift of the poor just as naturally govern the management of the free man’s upkeep. Under such different management, the same purpose must cost very different amounts to achieve. I believe that the experience of all ages and nations shows that work done by free men is cheaper in the end than work done by slaves. It is found to be cheaper even in Boston, New-York, and Philadelphia, where wages for ordinary labor are so high.

The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the effect of increasing wealth, so it is the cause of increasing population. To complain of it, is to lament over the necessary cause and effect of the greatest public prosperity.

Generous wages are therefore both a result of growing wealth and a cause of population growth. To complain about generous wages is to lament the necessary cause and effect of the greatest public prosperity.

It deserves to be remarked, perhaps, that it is in the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of the people, seems to be the happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state. The progressive state is, in reality, the cheerful and the hearty state to all the different orders of the society; the stationary is dull; the declining melancholy.

Perhaps it is worth noting when the working poor seem happiest and most comfortable. They make up the great majority of people. Their condition seems best while society is growing richer, rather than when it has reached its full wealth. Their condition is hard when society’s wealth is no longer growing, and miserable when it is declining. In fact, growth brings cheer and vigor to all classes of society. A society that is no longer growing is dull. A declining society is melancholy.

The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days, perhaps, in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low; in England, for example, than in Scotland; in the neighbourhood of great towns, than in remote country places. Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three. This, however, is by no means the case with the greater part. Workmen, on the contrary, when they are liberally paid by the piece, are very apt to overwork themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years. A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigour above eight years. Something of the same kind happens in many other trades, in which the workmen are paid by the piece; as they generally are in manufactures, and even in country labour, wherever wages are higher than ordinary. Almost every class of artificers is subject to some peculiar infirmity occasioned by excessive application to their peculiar species of work. Ramuzzini, an eminent Italian physician, has written a particular book concerning such diseases. We do not reckon our soldiers the most industrious set of people among us; yet when soldiers have been employed in some particular sorts of work, and liberally paid by the piece, their officers have frequently been obliged to stipulate with the undertaker, that they should not be allowed to earn above a certain sum every day, according to the rate at which they were paid. Till this stipulation was made, mutual emulation, and the desire of greater gain, frequently prompted them to overwork themselves, and to hurt their health by excessive labour. Excessive application, during four days of the week, is frequently the real cause of the idleness of the other three, so much and so loudly complained of. Great labour, either of mind or body, continued for several days together is, in most men, naturally followed by a great desire of relaxation, which, if not restrained by force, or by some strong necessity, is almost irresistible. It is the call of nature, which requires to be relieved by some indulgence, sometimes of ease only, but sometimes too of dissipation and diversion. If it is not complied with, the consequences are often dangerous and sometimes fatal, and such as almost always, sooner or later, bring on the peculiar infirmity of the trade. If masters would always listen to the dictates of reason and humanity, they have frequently occasion rather to moderate, than to animate the application of many of their workmen. It will be found, I believe, in every sort of trade, that the man who works so moderately, as to be able to work constantly, not only preserves his health the longest, but, in the course of the year, executes the greatest quantity of work.

Generous wages encourage ordinary people to have children, and they also make them more industrious. Wages encourage people to work, and industry, like every other human quality, improves with encouragement. A plentiful living makes a worker physically stronger. The comforting hope of improving his condition and perhaps ending his days in comfort and plenty inspires him. It encourages him to use his strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, we will always find workers more active, diligent, and quick than where wages are low. They are more so in England than in Scotland, for example, and near large towns than in remote rural places. Some workers, indeed, can earn enough in four days to support themselves for the whole week. They will then be idle for the other three days. But this is by no means true of most workers. On the contrary, workers paid generously by the piece are very likely to overwork themselves. In a few years, they can ruin their health and physical strength. A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not expected to remain at full strength for more than eight years. Much the same happens in many other trades where workers are paid by the piece. Workers are generally paid this way in manufacturing, and even in rural work wherever wages are higher than usual. Almost every class of craft worker suffers from some particular ailment caused by excessive devotion to its particular work. Ramuzzini, an eminent Italian physician, has written a book specifically about such diseases. We do not count our soldiers among the most industrious people. Yet soldiers have sometimes been employed in particular kinds of work and paid generously by the piece. Their officers have frequently had to make an agreement with the contractor. The agreement set a daily limit on what the soldiers could earn at the rate they were paid. Until this agreement was made, competition among the soldiers and the desire for greater earnings often led them to overwork. Their excessive labour harmed their health. Excessive work during four days of the week is often the real cause of idleness during the other three. People complain so often and so loudly about that idleness. After several days of hard mental or physical work, most people naturally feel a strong desire to relax. Unless restrained by force or some pressing need, that desire is almost irresistible. It is nature's call, and it must be relieved by some indulgence. Sometimes rest alone is enough, but sometimes people also need revelry and diversion. If the call is not answered, the consequences are often dangerous and sometimes fatal. Sooner or later, they almost always bring on the ailments particular to the trade. If employers always listened to reason and humanity, they would often have cause to restrain many workers rather than urge them on. I believe that in every trade, the man who works moderately enough to keep working steadily preserves his health longest. He also accomplishes the most work over the course of a year.

In cheap years it is pretended, workmen are generally more idle, and in dear times more industrious than ordinary. A plentiful subsistence, therefore, it has been concluded, relaxes, and a scanty one quickens their industry. That a little more plenty than ordinary may render some workmen idle, cannot be well doubted; but that it should have this effect upon the greater part, or that men in general should work better when they are ill fed, than when they are well fed, when they are disheartened than when they are in good spirits, when they are frequently sick than when they are generally in good health, seems not very probable. Years of dearth, it is to be observed, are generally among the common people years of sickness and mortality, which cannot fail to diminish the produce of their industry.

It is claimed that workers are generally lazier than usual when prices are low and more industrious when prices are high. From this, people have concluded that ample means of living make workers less industrious, while scarcity makes them work harder. There is little doubt that a little more abundance than usual may make some workers idle. But it seems unlikely that it would have this effect on most workers. Nor does it seem likely that people generally work better when poorly fed than when well fed. They are unlikely to work better when discouraged than when in good spirits, or when often sick than when generally healthy. Years of scarcity, it should be noted, are generally years of sickness and death among ordinary people. This cannot fail to reduce the output of their work.

In years of plenty, servants frequently leave their masters, and trust their subsistence to what they can make by their own industry. But the same cheapness of provisions, by increasing the fund which is destined for the maintenance of servants, encourages masters, farmers especially, to employ a greater number. Farmers, upon such occasions, expect more profit from their corn by maintaining a few more labouring servants, than by selling it at a low price in the market. The demand for servants increases, while the number of those who offer to supply that demand diminishes. The price of labour, therefore, frequently rises in cheap years.

In years of plenty, servants often leave their masters and rely on their own work to support themselves. But cheap food also increases the resources available to support servants. This encourages masters, especially farmers, to employ more servants. In such years, farmers expect to profit more by using their grain to feed a few more laborers than by selling it cheaply at market. Demand for servants increases, while fewer people offer to work as servants. As a result, wages often rise in years when food is cheap.

In years of scarcity, the difficulty and uncertainty of subsistence make all such people eager to return to service. But the high price of provisions, by diminishing the funds destined for the maintenance of servants, disposes masters rather to diminish than to increase the number of those they have. In dear years, too, poor independent workmen frequently consume the little stock with which they had used to supply themselves with the materials of their work, and are obliged to become journeymen for subsistence. More people want employment than easily get it; many are willing to take it upon lower terms than ordinary; and the wages of both servants and journeymen frequently sink in dear years.

In years of scarcity, the difficulty and uncertainty of making a living make all such people eager to return to service. But high food prices leave employers with less money to support servants. Employers are therefore more inclined to reduce their staff than to hire more servants. In expensive years, poor independent workers also often use up the small savings they relied on to buy materials. They must then become journeymen to make a living. More people want work than can easily find it. Many are willing to accept lower pay than usual. As a result, the wages of both servants and journeymen often fall in expensive years.

Masters of all sorts, therefore, frequently make better bargains with their servants in dear than in cheap years, and find them more humble and dependent in the former than in the latter. They naturally, therefore, commend the former as more favourable to industry. Landlords and farmers, besides, two of the largest classes of masters, have another reason for being pleased with dear years. The rents of the one, and the profits of the other, depend very much upon the price of provisions. Nothing can be more absurd, however, than to imagine that men in general should work less when they work for themselves, than when they work for other people. A poor independent workman will generally be more industrious than even a journeyman who works by the piece. The one enjoys the whole produce of his own industry, the other shares it with his master. The one, in his separate independent state, is less liable to the temptations of bad company, which, in large manufactories, so frequently ruin the morals of the other. The superiority of the independent workman over those servants who are hired by the month or by the year, and whose wages and maintenance are the same, whether they do much or do little, is likely to be still greater. Cheap years tend to increase the proportion of independent workmen to journeymen and servants of all kinds, and dear years to diminish it.

Employers of all kinds, therefore, often strike better bargains with their workers in years when food is expensive than when it is cheap. They also find workers more humble and dependent in expensive years. So employers naturally praise those years as better for hard work. Landlords and farmers are two of the largest groups of employers. They have another reason to welcome expensive years. Landlords' rents and farmers' profits depend greatly on the price of food. Yet nothing could be more absurd than to imagine that people generally work less for themselves than for others. A poor independent worker will generally work harder than even a journeyman paid by the piece. The independent worker keeps everything he produces, while the journeyman shares it with his employer. Working independently, he is less exposed to the temptations of bad company. In large factories, such company so often ruins the journeyman's morals. The independent worker is likely to be even more industrious than workers hired by the month or year. Those workers receive the same wages and support whether they do much or little. Years when food is cheap tend to increase the proportion of independent workers compared with journeymen and workers of all kinds. Years when food is expensive tend to reduce that proportion.

A French author of great knowledge and ingenuity, Mr Messance, receiver of the tallies in the election of St Etienne, endeavours to shew that the poor do more work in cheap than in dear years, by comparing the quantity and value of the goods made upon those different occasions in three different manufactures; one of coarse woollens, carried on at Elbeuf; one of linen, and another of silk, both which extend through the whole generality of Rouen. It appears from his account, which is copied from the registers of the public offices, that the quantity and value of the goods made in all those three manufactories has generally been greater in cheap than in dear years, and that it has always been greatest in the cheapest, and least in the dearest years. All the three seem to be stationary manufactures, or which, though their produce may vary somewhat from year to year, are, upon the whole, neither going backwards nor forwards.

Mr Messance, a highly knowledgeable and ingenious French author, was the receiver of the tallies in the district of St Etienne. He tries to show that the poor work more in years when prices are low than when they are high. He compares the quantity and value of goods produced in cheap and expensive years across three industries. One makes coarse woollen goods at Elbeuf. The other two make linen and silk throughout the generality of Rouen. His account is drawn from public office registers. It shows that, in all three industries, the quantity and value of goods produced were generally greater in cheap years than in expensive ones. Production was always greatest in the cheapest years and lowest in the most expensive. All three industries seem to be stable. Their output may vary somewhat from year to year, but overall they are neither declining nor growing.

The manufacture of linen in Scotland, and that of coarse woollens in the West Riding of Yorkshire, are growing manufactures, of which the produce is generally, though with some variations, increasing both in quantity and value. Upon examining, however, the accounts which have been published of their annual produce, I have not been able to observe that its variations have had any sensible connection with the dearness or cheapness of the seasons. In 1740, a year of great scarcity, both manufactures, indeed, appear to have declined very considerably. But in 1756, another year of great scarcity, the Scotch manufactures made more than ordinary advances. The Yorkshire manufacture, indeed, declined, and its produce did not rise to what it had been in 1755, till 1766, after the repeal of the American stamp act. In that and the following year, it greatly exceeded what it had ever been before, and it has continued to advance ever since.

Linen manufacturing in Scotland and coarse woollen manufacturing in the West Riding of Yorkshire are growing industries. Their output generally increases in both quantity and value, though it varies from year to year. However, I have examined the published accounts of their annual output. I have found no noticeable connection between these variations and whether the seasons brought high or low prices. In 1740, a year of great scarcity, both industries did indeed decline considerably. But in 1756, another year of great scarcity, Scottish manufacturing made greater progress than usual. The Yorkshire industry did decline, however. Its output did not return to its 1755 level until 1766, after the repeal of the American Stamp Act. In 1766 and the following year, its output greatly exceeded any previous level. It has continued to grow ever since.

The produce of all great manufactures for distant sale must necessarily depend, not so much upon the dearness or cheapness of the seasons in the countries where they are carried on, as upon the circumstances which affect the demand in the countries where they are consumed; upon peace or war, upon the prosperity or declension of other rival manufactures and upon the good or bad humour of their principal customers. A great part of the extraordinary work, besides, which is probably done in cheap years, never enters the public registers of manufactures. The men-servants, who leave their masters, become independent labourers. The women return to their parents, and commonly spin, in order to make clothes for themselves and their families. Even the independent workmen do not always work for public sale, but are employed by some of their neighbours in manufactures for family use. The produce of their labour, therefore, frequently makes no figure in those public registers, of which the records are sometimes published with so much parade, and from which our merchants and manufacturers would often vainly pretend to announce the prosperity or declension of the greatest empires.

The output of all large industries producing goods for distant markets must depend less on food prices in the countries where the goods are made than on demand in the countries where they are consumed. Demand depends on peace or war, the prosperity or decline of rival industries, and the good or bad mood of their principal customers. Besides, much of the extra work probably done in years when food is cheap never appears in public manufacturing records. Male servants who leave their employers become independent workers. Female servants return to their parents and usually spin yarn to make clothes for themselves and their families. Even independent workers do not always produce goods for public sale. Some of their neighbours employ them to make goods for family use. The output of their labour therefore often does not appear in those public records. These records are sometimes published with such great fanfare. Yet merchants and manufacturers often claim in vain to use them to show whether the greatest empires are prospering or declining.

Though the variations in the price of labour not only do not always correspond with those in the price of provisions, but are frequently quite opposite, we must not, upon this account, imagine that the price of provisions has no influence upon that of labour. The money price of labour is necessarily regulated by two circumstances; the demand for labour, and the price of the necessaries and conveniencies of life. The demand for labour, according as it happens to be increasing, stationary, or declining, or to require an increasing, stationary, or declining population, determines the quantities of the necessaries and conveniencies of life which must be given to the labourer; and the money price of labour is determined by what is requisite for purchasing this quantity. Though the money price of labour, therefore, is sometimes high where the price of provisions is low, it would be still higher, the demand continuing the same, if the price of provisions was high.

Changes in wages do not always match changes in food prices. In fact, they often move in opposite directions. But we must not assume that food prices have no influence on wages. Wages in money are necessarily determined by two factors: the demand for labour and the price of life’s necessities and comforts. The demand for labour may be increasing, steady, or declining. It may require a population that is growing, steady, or declining. This demand determines the quantity of life’s necessities and comforts that must be given to the worker. Wages in money are determined by the amount needed to buy that quantity. So, although wages in money are sometimes high where food prices are low, they would be higher still if food prices were high and the demand for labour remained the same.

It is because the demand for labour increases in years of sudden and extraordinary plenty, and diminishes in those of sudden and extraordinary scarcity, that the money price of labour sometimes rises in the one, and sinks in the other.

Demand for labor increases in years of sudden, exceptional abundance and decreases in years of sudden, exceptional scarcity. As a result, wages sometimes rise in abundant years and fall in scarce ones.

In a year of sudden and extraordinary plenty, there are funds in the hands of many of the employers of industry, sufficient to maintain and employ a greater number of industrious people than had been employed the year before; and this extraordinary number cannot always be had. Those masters, therefore, who want more workmen, bid against one another, in order to get them, which sometimes raises both the real and the money price of their labour.

In a year of sudden and extraordinary abundance, many employers have enough money to support and employ more workers than they did the year before. But they cannot always find enough additional workers. Employers who want more workers therefore bid against one another to hire them. This competition sometimes raises both the purchasing power of workers’ wages and the amount of money they earn.

The contrary of this happens in a year of sudden and extraordinary scarcity. The funds destined for employing industry are less than they had been the year before. A considerable number of people are thrown out of employment, who bid one against another, in order to get it, which sometimes lowers both the real and the money price of labour. In 1740, a year of extraordinary scarcity, many people were willing to work for bare subsistence. In the succeeding years of plenty, it was more difficult to get labourers and servants. The scarcity of a dear year, by diminishing the demand for labour, tends to lower its price, as the high price of provisions tends to raise it. The plenty of a cheap year, on the contrary, by increasing the demand, tends to raise the price of labour, as the cheapness of provisions tends to lower it. In the ordinary variations of the prices of provisions, those two opposite causes seem to counterbalance one another, which is probably, in part, the reason why the wages of labour are everywhere so much more steady and permanent than the price of provisions.

The opposite happens in a year of sudden, extraordinary scarcity. Less money is available to employ workers than in the previous year. Many people lose their jobs and compete with one another for work. This sometimes lowers both the purchasing power of wages and their amount in money. In 1740, a year of extraordinary scarcity, many people were willing to work for just enough to survive. In the years of abundance that followed, workers and servants were harder to find. In a year of scarcity and high prices, the reduced demand for labor tends to lower wages. At the same time, the high price of food and other necessities tends to raise them. In a year of abundance and low prices, the opposite happens. Increased demand for labor tends to raise wages, while cheaper necessities tend to lower them. When the prices of necessities vary in ordinary ways, these opposing forces seem to balance each other out. This is probably part of the reason wages everywhere are much steadier and more stable than those prices.

The increase in the wages of labour necessarily increases the price of many commodities, by increasing that part of it which resolves itself into wages, and so far tends to diminish their consumption, both at home and abroad. The same cause, however, which raises the wages of labour, the increase of stock, tends to increase its productive powers, and to make a smaller quantity of labour produce a greater quantity of work. The owner of the stock which employs a great number of labourers necessarily endeavours, for his own advantage, to make such a proper division and distribution of employment, that they may be enabled to produce the greatest quantity of work possible. For the same reason, he endeavours to supply them with the best machinery which either he or they can think of. What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse, takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into different classes and subdivisions of employments. More heads are occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented. There are many commodities, therefore, which, in consequence of these improvements, come to be produced by so much less labour than before, that the increase of its price is more than compensated by the diminution of its quantity.

Higher wages necessarily raise the price of many goods, because wages make up part of their price. Higher prices tend to reduce consumption both at home and abroad. But the same cause that raises wages, an increase in capital, also tends to increase workers' productivity. It enables fewer workers to produce more. A person who uses capital to employ many workers will naturally seek to divide and organize their work efficiently. This allows them to produce as much as possible, to the owner's advantage. For the same reason, the owner tries to supply them with the best machinery that either they or the owner can devise. What happens among workers in a particular workplace also happens, for the same reason, among workers in a large society. The more workers there are, the more naturally they divide into different occupations and specialties. More people are occupied in inventing the best machinery for each kind of work. As a result, the right machinery is more likely to be invented. Because of these improvements, many goods come to be produced with much less labor than before. The reduction in labor more than makes up for its higher price.