本帖最后由 万得福 于 2015-5-11 12:55 编辑
第八章 论劳动工资
劳动生产物构成劳动的自然报酬或自然工资。
在土地尚未私有而资本尚未累积的原始社会状态下，劳动的全部生产物属于劳动者，既无地主也无雇主来同他分享。
这种状态如果继续下去，劳动工资将随着分工所引起的劳动生产力的增大而增加起来。但一切物品却将日渐低廉，因为生产它们所需要的劳动量变小了。在这种状态下，等量劳动所生产的各种商品自然可以互相交换，所以，要购买各种商品，只需较少数量的劳动生产物。
可是一切物品，尽管实际上变得低廉，但表面上却有些物品地比以前昂贵，换句话说，可交换较多数量的其他货物。假定大多数产业的劳动生产力增加十倍，即现今一天劳动的生产量十倍于以前一天的劳动，而某一种产业的劳动生产力却只增加一倍，即造产业现今一天劳动的生产量只二倍于以前一天的劳动。在这场合，这大多数产业一天劳动生产物，如果与那产业一天劳动生产物交换，那末前者以原工作量的十倍，不过购入后者原工作量的二倍。因此，后者的一定分量，例如一磅，就似乎比以前贵了五倍。但其实却是比以前低廉了二分之一。购买这一磅货物所需的其他货物量虽五倍于以前，但生产或购买这一磅货物所需的劳动量却不过等于以前的二分之一。所以，现今获得此物比以前容易了两倍。
但劳动者独享全部劳动生产物的这种原始状态，一到有了土地私有和资本累积，就宣告终结了。所以，在劳动生产力尚未有显著改善以前，这种原始状态早已不复存在了；要就此种状态对劳动报酬或劳动工资所可能有的影响作进一步的探讨，那是徒劳无功的。
土地一旦成为私有财产，地主就要求劳动者从土地生产出来或采集到的几乎所有物品中分给他一定份额。因此，地主的地租，便成为要以用在土地上的劳动的生产物中扣除的第一个项目。
一般耕作者大都没有维持生活到庄稼收割的资料。他们的生活费通常是由雇用他们的农业家从他的资本项下垫付的。除非他能分享劳动者的生产物，换言之，除非他在收回资本时得到相当的利润，否则他就不愿雇用劳动者。因此，利润成为要从用在土地上的劳动的生产物中扣除的第二个项目。
其实，利润的扣除，不仅农业生产物为然，一切其他劳动的生产物亦莫不如是。在一切工艺成制造业中，大部分劳动者在作业完成以前都需要雇主给他们垫付原材料、工资与生活费。雇主分享他们的劳动生产物，换言之，分享劳动对原材料所增加的价值，而这一分享的份额便是他的利润。
一个独立工作的工人，有时也有资力，足以自行购买原材料，并维持自己生活，一直到作业完成。他兼有劳动者及雇主的身分，享有全部劳动生产物，即享有劳动所加于原材料的全部价值。因此，他的利得包含通常属于两个不同身分的人所有的两种不同收入，即资本利润与劳动工资。
可是，这种实例不很多。就全欧洲说，其比例是，在老板下面工作的工人有二十个，自己独立工作的工人只有一个。而且，劳动工资一语，都普遍理解为，在劳动者为一人而雇用他的资本所有者另为一人的一般情况下，劳动获得的工资。
劳动者的普通工资，到处都取决于劳资两方所订的契约。这两方的利害关系绝不一致。劳动者盼望多得，雇主盼望少给。劳动者都想为提高工资而结合，雇主却想为减低工资而联合。
但在一般的争议情况下，要预知劳资两方谁占有利地位，谁能迫使对方接受自己提出的条件，决非难事。雇主的人数较少，团结较易。加之，他们的结合为法律所公认，至少不受法律禁止。但劳动者的结合却为法律所禁止。有许多议会的法会取缔为提高劳动价格而结合的团体，但没有一个法令取缔为减低劳动价格而结合的组织。况且，在争议当中，雇主总比劳动者较能持久。地主、农业家、制造者或商人，纵使不雇用一个劳动者，亦往往能靠既经蓄得的资本维持一两年生活；失业劳动者，能支持一星期生活的已不多见，能支持一月的更少，能支持一年的简直没有。就长时期说，雇主需要劳动者的程度，也许和劳动者需要雇主的程度相同，但雇主的需要没有劳动者那样迫切。
据说，工人的结合常常听到，而雇主的结合却很少听到。可是，谁要是因此认为雇主实际很少结合，那就未免昧于世故，不了解这问题的真相了。雇主们为使劳动工资不超过其实际工资率，随时随地都有一种秘而不宣的团结一致的结合。破坏团结，随时随地都是最不名誉的行动，都为近邻和同业者所耻笑。我们所以不常听到这种结合，正因为那是一种不被人知道的普通结合，或者可以说是一种自然结合。此外，雇主们为要把劳动工资减低到其实际工资率以下，有时也组织特殊的结合。此种结合，直到达到目的为止，总是保持极度的沉默与秘密。劳动者这时虽痛切成到资方的这种秘密结合，却往往无抵抗他屈服，其他人因此都不知道。不过，对于雇主的这种结合，工人们往往也组织对抗的防御性结合。而且，即在没有这种雇主结合的时候，工人们为提高劳动价格，有时也自动结合起来。他们所持的理由，有时是食粮腾贵，有时是雇主从他们的劳动得到过多的利润。他们的结合，无论是防御性的或是攻击性的，总是声闻遐迩。为求争点迅速解决，他们老是狂呼呐喊，有时甚至用极可怕的暴力。他们处于绝望的境地，铤而走险，如果不让自己饿死，就得胁迫雇主立即答应他们的要求。这时，雇主也同样喧呼呐喊，请求官厅援助，要求严厉执行取缔工人结合的严峻法规。因此，工人很少能从那些愤激的结合的暴动中得到利益。那些结合，部分因为官厅干涉，部分因为雇主较能持久，部分因为大多数劳动者为了目前生计不得不屈服，往往以为首者受到惩罚或一败涂地而告终。
不过，在争议中，雇主虽常居于有利地位，但劳动工资有一定的标准，在相当长的期间内，即使最低级劳动者的普通工资，似也不能减到这一定标准之下。
需要靠劳动过活的人，其工资至少须足够维持其生活。在大多数场合，工资还得稍稍超过足够维持生活的程度，否则劳动者就不能赡养家室而传宗接代了。坎梯隆似乎因此推测，最下级普通劳动者，为供养儿女二人，至少须取得倍于自身所需的生活费，而其妻子，由于需要照料儿女，其劳动所得，只够维持自己。但据一般计算，常有半数儿童在未成年以前死去。因此，最贫穷的劳动者按照上述计算，一般都想至少养育四个孩子，以便能有两个孩子活到成人年龄。但坎梯隆认为，四个孩子的必要扶养费也许和一个成年人的生活费几乎相等。他还说，一个强壮奴隶劳动的价值，算来倍于其生活费，一个最低级劳动者劳动的价值，不可能低于一个强壮奴隶劳动的价值。因此，至少这一点似乎是肯定的：为赡养家属，即使最低级普通劳动者夫妇二人劳动所得，也必须能稍稍超过维持他俩自身生活所需要的费用。但是，这种超过额，是按什么比例，是按上述比例，或是按其他比例，我不想加以确定。
可是，有某些情况，有时也使劳动者立于有利地位，并使他们能够得到大大超过上述工资的工资。很明显，上述工资是符合一般人道标准的最低工资。
不论何国，如果对那些靠工资过活的人，即工人、散工、各种佣人等的需求不断地增加，换言之，如果每年提供的就业机会都比前一年多，劳动者就没有为着提高工资而结合的必要。劳动者不够，自会导致雇主间的竞争；雇主们竞相出高价雇用劳动者，这样他们就自动冲破了防止工资提高的自然结合。
很明显，对工资劳动者的需求，必定随着预定用来支付劳动工资的资金的增加而成比例地增加。这种资金有两种：一，超过维持生活需要的收入；二，超过雇主自己使用需要的资财。
地主、年金领受者、有钱人，如果认为自己的收入除维持身家外还有剩余，他们一定会把剩余额的全部或一部分，用来雇用若干家仆。这剩余额增加，他们所雇用的家仆自然也随之而增加。
织工、鞋匠这一类独立工作的劳动者所持的资本，如果除了购买供自己使用的原材料并维持他在货品出售以前的生活外，还有剩余，他自然也会以这剩余额雇用一个乃至数个帮工，以便靠他们的劳作获利。这剩余增加，他所雇帮工的人数自然也随之而增加。
因此，对工资劳动者的需求，必随一国收入和资本的增加而增加。收入和资本没有增加，对工资劳动者的需求决不会增加。而收入和资本的增加，就是国民财富的增加。所以，对工资劳动者的需求，自随国民财富的增加而增加。国民财富不增加，对工资劳动者的需求决不会增加。
然而，使劳动工资增高的，不是庞大的现有国民财富，而是不断增加的国民财富。因此最高的劳动工资不在最富的国家出现，而却在最繁荣，即最快变得富裕的国家出现。今日英格兰确比北美各地富，然北美各地的劳动工资却比英格兰各地高。纽约地方，普通劳动者一日的工资为美币三先令六便士，合英币二先令；造船木匠为美币十先令六便士，外加值英币六便士的糖酒一品脱，全部合英币六先令六便土；泥水匠及建筑木匠为美币八先令，合英币四先令六便士；裁缝帮工为美币五先令，合英币二先令十便士。这些价格都在伦敦价格之上。据说，其他殖民地的工资也和纽约同样高。食品的价格，北美各地都比英格兰低得多。北美从来没有饥荒现象。即在歉收的年度，只不过减少输出，没减到自己供给不足。所以，北美劳动的货币价格如果比母国各地高，那末其真实价格，即其货币价格对劳动者提供的支配生活必需品和便利品的实际能力，在比例上必定比母国更高。
北美虽没有英格兰那样富裕，但比英格兰更繁荣，并以大得多的速度增加财富。一国繁荣最明确的标识，就是居民人数的增加。英格兰以及欧洲大多数其他国家的居民，在大约五百年内，不敢说有一倍的增加，但在北美英属各殖民地，在二十年或二十五年内，就增加了一倍。就现在说，这种迅速增加的主要原因，不是新居民的不断移入，而是人口的迅速繁殖。据说，当地高龄居民往往能亲眼看到五十、一百甚至一百个以上的直系子孙。由于劳动报酬优厚，多子女不但不成为室家之累，反而成为家庭富盛的源泉。在离去双亲家庭以前，每个儿女的劳动，推算起来，足有纯收盆一百镑的价值。一个有四五个孩子的青年寡妇，在欧洲中等及下等人民间，很少能找到第二丈夫，但在北美地方，那些儿女常是诱使男子向她求婚的财产。儿童的价值是结婚的最大鼓励。所以，北美人的早婚是毫不足怪的。可是，尽管早婚招致了人口很大的增加，但北美人民却仍不断发出劳动者不足的诉苦声。对劳动者需求的增加，和维持劳动者资金的增加，似乎比劳动供给的增加快得多。
一国尽管非常富有，如若长久陷于停滞状态，我们就不能希望在那里找到极高的工资。指定用来支付工资的资金，换言之，居民的收入和资本，也许达到极大的数额。但这数额如果数世纪不变，或几乎不变，那末每年所雇用的劳动者人数就很容易供应下一年所需劳动者人数，甚或还有剩余。这样，劳动者既不缺少，雇主也不会为要获得劳动者而相互竞争。在另一方面，劳动者的增加却自然会超过需要雇用的人数。就业机会常感不足，于是劳动者为要获得工作，不得不互相竞事。假如，该国劳动者的工资，本来足够养活他们各自的身家而且还有剩余，那末劳动者间的竞争和雇主们的利害关系，不久就会使工资减低到合乎一般人道标准的最低工资。中国一向是世界上最富的国家，就是说，土地最肥沃，耕作最精细，人民最多而且最勤勉的国家。然而，许久以来，它似乎就停滞于静止状态了。今日旅行家关于中国耕作、勤劳及人口稠密状况的报告，与五百年前视察该国的马哥孛罗的记述比较，几乎没有什么区别。也许在马哥孛罗时代以前好久，中国的财富就已完全达到了该国法律制度所允许的发展程度。各旅行家的报告，虽有许多相互矛盾的地方，但关于中国劳动工资低廉和劳动者难于赡养家属的记述，则众口一辞。中国耕作者终日劳作，所得报酬若够购买少量稻米，也就觉得满足。技工的状况就更恶劣。欧洲技工总是漫无所事地在自己工场内等候顾客，中国技工却是随身携带器具，为搜寻，或者说，为乞求工作，而不断在街市东奔西走。中国下层人民的贫困程度，远远超过欧洲最贫乏国民的贫困程度。据说，在广州附近，有数千百户人家，陆上没有居处，栖息于河面的小渔船中。因为食料缺乏，这些人往往争取欧来船舶投弃船外的最污秽废物。腐烂的动物尸体，例如死猫或死犬，纵使一半烂掉并发臭，他们得到它，正象别国人得到卫生食品那么高兴。结婚，在中国是受到了奖励的，但这并不是由于生儿育女有出息，而是由于有杀害儿童的自由。在各大都市，每夜总有若干婴孩被委弃街头巷尾，或者象小狗一样投在水里。而这种可怕的杀婴工作，据说是一部分人公然自认的谋生手段。
不过，中国虽可能处于静止状态，但似乎还未曾退步。那里，没有被居民遗弃的都市，也没有听其荒芜的耕地。每年被雇用的劳动，仍是不变，或几乎不变；因此，指定用来维持劳动的资金也没显然减少。所以，最下级劳动者的生活资料虽很缺乏，但还能勉强敷衍下去，使其阶级保持着原有的人数。
在指定用来维持劳动的资金显著减少的国家里，情形就截然不同了。每年各等职业所需要的雇工和劳动者，都比前一年少。许多不能在上等职业中找得工作的上等阶级人民，也想在最下等的职业中找工作。这样，在最下等职业中，就不但有了超过需要的最下级劳动者，而且还有过多的从其他各阶级纷纷拥入的人。结果，职业的竞争变得非常剧烈，以致把劳动工资减低到极悲惨极贫困的生活水准。而且，即使忍受这些苛刻条件，还有许多人找不到职业。这些人，要么饿死，要么沦为乞丐，不然也许只有搞罪大恶极的勾当才能取得生活资料。接着，穷乏、饥饿和死亡等灾祸就落到最下级的劳动者身上，后来波及所有上等阶级，终至国内居民减少到经过苛政或灾祸而硕果仅存的收入和资本所能容易维持的人数。东印度的孟加拉及其他若干英领殖民地的现状，也许几乎就是如此。如果一个国家土地肥沃，人口又经大大减少，因而生活资料并不十分困难，可是年年仍不免有三四十万人因饥饿而濒于死亡，我们就可以断言，那是因为该国指定用来维持贫困劳动者的资金正在迅速减少。英国保护和统治北美的政治机构和压迫与压制东印度的商业公司的不同性质，用这两地的不同情况来说明，也许是再好不过的。
所以劳动报酬优厚，是国民财富增进的必然结果，同时又是国民财富增进的自然征候。反之，贫穷劳动者生活维持费不足，是社会停滞不进的征候，而劳动者处于饥饿状态，乃是社会急速退步的征候。
看来，不列颠现今的劳动工资，显然超过了维持劳动者一家生活所需的数额。为证明这一点，我们无须作烦琐或未必有结果的计算，来推定劳动者至少需多少工资，才能养活一家。有很多明显征象表明，不列颠各地劳动工资，不是以符合人道标准的最低工资为准则的。
第一，不列颠几乎所有地方，甚至最低级劳动也有夏季工资与冬季工资的区别。夏季工资总是最高工资。但冬季有薪炭临时开支，故冬季家庭生活费在一年中为最大。生活费最低时，工资反而最高，这就表明，劳动工资不受最低生活所需要的数额的支配，而受工作的数量及其假定价值的支配。也许有人说，劳动者应贮藏夏季工资的一部分，来支付冬季费用，而他全年的工资，并不超过他一年中维持身家所需要的数额。可是，奴隶或绝对仰赖他人为活的人所得到的待遇，却不是这样。他的日常生活资料，都和他的日常需要相称。
第二，不列颠的劳动工资，不随食品价格变动而变动。食品价格，到处都年年变动，常常月月变动。但有许多地方的劳动的货币价格，有时经过半世纪，还仍旧不变。因此，假若这些地方的贫穷劳动者，在食品最昂贵的年岁，能够维持他的身家，那末，在食品价格一般而供给又很充足的年岁，必能过舒适生活；在食品异常低廉的年岁，就过着优裕生活。在过去十年中，不列颠有许多地方食物昂贵，而劳动的货币价格并不随着显著提高。固然，确有些地方的劳动的货币价格提高了，但那与其说起因于食物的昂贵，倒不如说起因于劳动需求的增加。
第三，就不同年度说，食品价格的变动，大于劳动工资的变动，而就不同地方说，劳动工资的变动，却大于食品价格的变动。面包和家畜肉的价格，在不列颠几乎所有地方一般相同，或大约相同。这两种商品以及大多数其他零售商品（贫穷劳动者零购的一切物品），在大都市和在僻远地方，价格是同样低廉，或者，大都市方面还比较低廉，其原因我以后说明。但大都市与其附近地带的劳动工资，往往比数哩以外地方的劳动工资，高五分之一或四分之一，即高百分之二十或百分之二十五。伦敦及其附近劳动的普通价格，可只说是每日十八便土。数哩以外，即减低到十四便土或十五便土。爱丁堡及其附近劳动的普通价格，可只说是每日十便士，数哩以外，就低落到八便土。八便士是苏格兰低地一带大部分地方的普通劳动的普通价格，在那里，这价格的变动比英格兰少得多。劳动价格上的差异，虽未必会驱使一个人由一教区移到另一教区去，但货物价格这样的差异，却必然使许多容积巨大的货物，从一教区到另一教区，从国内一个地方到另一个地方，甚至可只说从世界的一端到另一端的运输，变得非常频繁，不久就使它们趋于均衡。人性见异思迁，虽早有定论，但根据我们的经验，人类却显然又是安土重迁，最不爱移动的。贫苦劳动者，在不列颠劳动价格最低廉的地方，要是能够维持家属，那末在不列颠工资最高的地方，就一定能过优裕的生活。
第四，劳动价格的变动，无论就时间说或就地方说，不但不与食品价格的变动一致，而且往往正相反。
一般人常食谷物的价格，苏格兰比英格兰高，苏格兰几乎每年都由英格兰输入大宗谷物。英格兰谷物，在输入谷物的苏格兰售卖的价格，必须高于在输出谷物的英格兰售卖的价格，但英格兰谷物在苏格兰市场售卖的价格，不能高于和它相竞争的同质量苏格兰本地谷物的价格。谷物品质的良否，主要要看它可磨得的粉量多寡而定。就这一点说，英格兰谷物，远胜于苏格兰谷物，所以，从外表说，或从其体积说，英格兰谷物的价格，虽高于苏格兰谷物的价格，但就其实质即品质或重量说，一般却比苏格兰低廉得多。可是，劳动价格，在苏格兰却比英格兰低。因此，贫苦劳动者，在联合王国的一部分即苏格兰，如能维持其家属，那末在联合王国的另一部分即英格兰，就必能过丰裕的生活。现今，苏格兰普通人民，从燕麦片为最常食和最好食物，这和英格兰同阶级人民最常食的食物比较，一般是坏得多。这种生活方式的差异，不是两地人民工资差异的原园，而是工资差异的结果，可是许多人却往往不可思议地倒果为因。甲富而乙贫，并不是因为甲有马，乙却步行，而是因为甲富能备有马车，乙贫不能不步行。
各年度计算，前世纪英格兰、苏格兰两地谷物价格，比现世纪高。现在，这是个不容置疑的事实，如必欲加以可能有的实证，那末苏格兰，比英格兰更为明确。因为苏格兰每年的公定谷价可作证明，苏格兰每年按市场实际状况，依宣誓手续，评定所属各地种种谷物的价格。如果这种直接证掘还需要间接证据作为旁证，那末我说，法国甚或欧洲大多数地方的情况也是这样。就法国说，我们有了最明确的证明。不过，前世纪英格兰、苏格兰两地谷物价格，略高于现世纪，虽无可置疑，但前世纪两地劳动价格，比现世纪低得多，亦同样无可置疑。因此，假如贫穷劳动者，在前世纪能够维持他的家属，那末，他现在必定能过着舒适得多的生活。前世纪，在苏格兰大多数地方，普通劳动的最普通日工资，夏天为六便土，冬天为五便士。在苏格兰高地及西部各岛若干地方，工资还是一星期三先令或大约三先令。现在，在苏格兰低地，普通劳动的最普通工资，一天为八便士。在爱丁堡附近，在邻近英格兰因而可能受英格兰影响的各州，在劳动需求最近已大大增加的格拉斯科、卡朗和爱州等附近，普通劳动的最普通工资一天为十便士，有时或为一先令。英格兰农工商业的改进，远较苏格兰为早。劳动的需求以及劳动的价格，必随此等改良而增加。因此，在前世纪和现世纪，英格兰的劳动工资高于苏格兰。而且从那时以来，英格兰的劳动工资，大大增加，但由于英格兰各地支付的工资，在种类上比苏格兰多，所以，要确定英格兰工资的增加率，比苏格兰困难。 1614年，步兵一名一日的饷银，与现今同为八便土。当初规定这种饷额时，必然是以普通劳动者普通工资为标准，因为步兵大都征自这个阶级。查理二世时代，高等法院院长黑尔斯，推算劳动者六口（父亲母亲，略能工作的子女二人，全不能工作子女二人）之家的用费，一星期为十先令，即一年需二十六镑。他认为，如果他们不能靠劳动来赚得此数，他们就得靠乞讨或盗窃来凑成此数。黑尔斯对于这问题，似曾下了一番研究。从熟习政治数学博得德维南博士的格里戈里·金，也曾于至6既年推算一般劳动者及外佣工的普通收入，以为平均由三个半人合成的家庭，一年需费十五镑。从表面上看，金的计算，似与黑尔斯的计算有出入，但实则大体一致。他们都认为，这种家庭一星期的用费，每人约二十便士。从那时以来，王国多数地方，这种家庭的货币收入与货币费用，都有大的增加，不过有的地方增加多些，有的地方增加少些，而且所增加的，没有象最近刊布的关于现今劳动工资增高那些夸张报告所说的那么多。必须指出，任何地方的劳动价格，都不能极正确地确定。因为，就是同一地方同一种类的劳动，也往往依照劳动者的巧拙只及雇主的宽吝，给付不同的价格。在工资波有法律规定的地方，我们想要确定的，只是最普通的工资。而且，经验似乎告诉我们，法律虽屡次企图规定工资，但实际上，却从未作出适当的规定。
现世纪，劳动的真实报酬，即劳动使劳动者得到的生活必需品和便利品的真实数量的增加，可能在比例上大于劳动货币价格的增加。不仅谷物的价格，比从前稍稍低廉，而且那些成为贫穷劳动者适意和卫生食料的许多其他东西的价格，也大大跌落。例如，现今王国大多数地方马铃薯价格，只有三、四十年前的一半。从前用鍬而今日普通用犁种植的芜青、胡萝卜、卷心菜等的价格，也可以说和马铃薯同样低廉。一切蔬果，也变得低廉。我们知道，前一世纪英国消费的大部分苹果和洋葱，都是由弗兰德输入的。麻布制造和呢绒制造的大改良，给劳动者提供了质更好价更廉的衣服。贱金属制造的大改良，不仅给劳动者提供了更精良的职业用具，而且提供了许多快意的和便利的家具。诚然，肥皂、食盐、蜡烛、皮革及发酵酒，由于课税而抬高了价格，但其中，为贫穷劳动者所必须消费的分量，却极其有限。这小部分商品价格的昂贵，并不抵消其他多数物品价格的下落。世人往往说，奢侈之风，波及下等阶级，连贫穷劳动者现在也对以前的衣食住条件感到不满足，他们这样说，使我们确信，劳动的货币价格与其真实价格增大了。
下层阶级生活状况的改善，是对社会有利呢，或是对社会不利呢？一看就知道，这问题的答案极为明显。各种佣人、劳动者和职工，在任何大政治社会中，都占最大部分。社会最大部分成员境遇的改善，决不能视为对社会全体不利。有大部分成员陷于贫困悲惨状态的社会，决不能说是繁荣幸福的社会。而且，供给社会全体以衣食住的人，在自身劳动生产物中，分享一部分，使自己得到过得去的衣食住条件，才算是公正。
贫困无疑会使人不想结婚，但未必会使人不结婚。贫困似乎还有利于生育。苏格兰高地处于半饥饿状态的妇女，常生子女二十人以上，而奢侈的上等社会妇女，往往不能生育，一般只能生两三个。不妊症，虽为上等社会所常患，但在下等社会，却极少有。女性的奢侈，虽能刺激享乐的欲望，看来往往会削弱，而且常常会彻底破坏生育能力。
贫困虽不能阻止生育，但极不利于子女的抚养。柔嫩植物长出来了，但在土地塞冽和气候严酷的环境中，不久就枯死。我常听说，苏格兰高地常有一母产子二十个而活的只有一个的实例。几个富有经验的军官告诉我说，士兵在联队内生的全部儿童，漫说后来用以补充联队的缺额，即用以充当联队的吹鼓手，亦嫌不够。但是，在兵营附近看到的可爱孩子，却比其他地方多。这些孩子很少长到十三四岁。有些地方生出来的儿童，在四岁前，死去一半；有许多地方，在七岁前死去一半；在九、十岁前死去一半，几乎是一种普遍现象。这样大的死亡率，在各地方下等人民间都可看到。他们不能象上等人民那么注意养育子女。一般地说，他们的结婚，虽比上流社会的人更为多产，但他们的儿童中，达到成年的却比较少。与普通人民的儿童比较，育婴堂及教区慈善会内收养的儿童，死亡率还要大。
各种动物的增殖，自和其生活资料成比例。没有一种动物的增殖，能超过这个比例。然而，在文明社会，只有在下等人中间，生活资料不够才能限制人类进一步繁殖。要限制进一步的增殖，除了杀死他们多子女婚姻所生的大部分子女外，没有其他方法。
丰厚的劳动报酬，由于它使劳动者能够改善他们儿童的给养，从而使他们能够养大较多的儿童，势必会放宽和扩大上述限度。应该指出，上述限度扩大的程度，也必然尽可能和劳动需求所需要的程度相称。如果劳动需求继续增加，劳动报酬必然鼓励劳动者结婚和增殖，使他们能够不断增加人口，来供给不断增加的劳动需求。什么时候，要是劳动报酬不够鼓励人口增殖，劳动者的缺乏不久就会抬高劳动的报酬。什么时候，要是劳动报酬过分鼓励人口增殖，劳动者的过多不久就使劳动的报酬减到其应有的程度。在前一场合，市场上的劳动供给，如此不足，在后一场合，市场上的劳动供给，又如此过剩，结果都迫使劳动价格，不久又回到社会所需要有的适当程度。因此，象对其他商品的需求必然支配其他商品的生产一样，对人口的需求也必然支配人口的生产。生产过于迟缓，则加以促进；生产过于迅速，则加以抑制。世界各地，不论在北美，在欧洲，或是在中国，支配和决定人口繁殖程度的正是这一需求。这需求在北美，成为人口迅速增加的原因，在欧洲，成为人口缓慢而逐渐增加的原因，在中国，就成为人口不增不减的原因。
据说，奴隶的损耗，其损失在雇主，自由佣工的损耗，其损失却在他自身。其实，后者的损耗，与前者的损耗一样都是屋主的损失。各种职工和佣工，都必须给付这样的工资，使他们能够按照社会对他们的需求的增加、减少或不增不减等情况，而维持其种类。不过，自由佣工的损耗，虽同是雇主的损失，但与奴隶的损耗比较，则雇主所受损失又少得多。要是我可这样说，用作补充或修补奴隶损耗的资金，通常都由不留心的雇主或疏忽的监工管理。但修补自由佣工损耗的资金却由自由佣工自己管理。一由钱财通常管理得漫无秩序的富人管理，所只管理上自亦漫无秩序；一由处处节省和锱铢必较的穷人自己管理，所以管理上亦是处处节省和锱铢必较。在这样不同的管理下，相同的目的，却需要有大不相同的费用。所以，征之一切时代和一切国民的经验，我相信，由自由人作成的作品，归根到底比由奴隶作成的作品低廉。即在普通劳动工资很高的波士顿、纽约和费城，也是这样。
所以，充足的劳动报酬，既是财富增加的结果，又是人口增加的原因。对充足的劳动报酬发出怨言，就是对最大公共繁荣的必然结果与原因发出悲叹。
也许值得指出，不是在社会达到绝顶富裕的时候，而是在社会处于进步状态并日益富裕的时候，贫穷劳动者，即大多数人民，似乎最幸福、最安乐。在社会静止状态下，境遇是艰难的；在退步状态下，是困苦的。进步状态实是社会各阶级快乐旺盛的状态。静止状态是呆滞的状态，而退步状态则是悲惨的状态。
充足的劳动报酬，鼓励普通人民增殖，因而鼓励他们勤勉。劳动工资，是勤勉的奖励。勤勉象人类其他品质一样，越受奖励越发勤奋。丰富的生活资料，使劳动者体力增进，而生活改善和晚景优裕的愉快希望，使他们益加努力。所只，高工资地方的劳动者，总是比低工资地方的劳动者活泼、勤勉和敏捷。例如，英格兰劳动者比苏格兰劳动者强；大都会附近的劳动者比僻远农村的劳动者强。诚然，有些劳动者如能在四天中挣得足以维持一星期生活的生活资料，将无所事事地虚度过其余三天，但就大多数劳动者说，并不如此。反之，在工资按件计算时，许多劳动者往往没几年就把身体搞垮了。据说，伦敦及其他一些地方的木匠，不能保持最精壮气力到八年以上。此种现象，在工资按件计算的许多其他行业，常有发生。制造业一般是按件计算工资，连农村劳动在工资较通常为高的地方，也是按件计资。几乎各种技工，在特殊业务上，往往因操劳过度而生特殊疾病。意大利著名医生拉马齐尼，关于这类疾病，曾著有专书。我们不把我们的士兵看做勤劳人民，但在他们从事某项特殊工程而按件领受工资时，军官常须与领工者约定，他们每日报酬，按他们的报酬率，不得超过一定数额。在这条件订定之前，士兵常因相互竞争希望得到较大报酬而操劳过度，损害健康。一星期中四天过度的操劳，乃是共余三天闲散的真正原因，而世人对于这三天的闲散，却大发牢骚并大声叫嚣。大多数人在连续数天紧张的脑力或体力劳动之后，自然会强烈地想要休息。这欲望，除非受到暴力或某种强烈需要的抑制，否则是几乎压制不住的。天性要求，在紧张劳动之后，有一定程度的纵情快乐，有时只是悠闲自在一会，有时却是闲游浪荡和消遣娱乐。如不依从这要求，其结果常是很危险的，有时是致命的，不然，迟早亦会产生职业上的阵殊疾病。如果雇主听从理性及人道主义的主宰，就不应常常鼓励劳动者勤勉，应当要他们适度地工作。我相信，在各个行业，一个能工作适度的人，能够继续不断工作，不仅长期保持健康，而且在一年中做出比其他人更多的工作。
有人说，在物价低廉的年度，劳动者大抵较平常懒惰；在物价高昂的年度，则较平常勤勉。他们由此得到结论：生活资料丰富，劳动者的工作，就弛缓起来；生活资料不足，劳动者的工作就紧张起来。说生活资料略较平常丰富，也许使一部分劳动者偷闲，那是无可置疑的，但若说大多数劳动者，都会因此怠于作业，或者说，一般人在吃得不好时，比吃得好时工作更好，在意志消沉时，比兴致勃勃时工作更好，在疾病时，比健康时工作更好，那似乎是不大可靠的说法。应该指出，对一般人民说，饥馑的年岁，往往是疾病死亡的年岁，而疾病和死亡，势必减低他们的劳动产物。
在物资丰厚的年度，佣工往往离开主人，靠自己劳动生活。但食品价格的低廉，由于增加用来维持佣工的资金，也鼓励雇主，尤其是农业家，雇用更多的佣工。因为在这时期，农业家与其以低廉市价出卖谷物，倒不如以谷物维持较多佣工，以期得到较大的利润。对佣工的需求增加，而供应这需求的人数却减少。所以劳动价格往往在物价低廉时上升。
在物资缺乏的年度，生计的困难与不安定，使这些佣工切望复得旧有的工作。但食品的高价，由于减少用来维持劳动的资金，使雇主倾向于减少现有的雇工，而不倾向于增加。况且，在物价高昂的年度，贫穷独立劳动者往往把以前用以购置材料的少额资本全部提出来消费，这样就不得不变为雇工。求职的人数，既然超过了就职的机会，许多人就只好接受比通常低的条件，来获取职业。所以在物价昂贵的年度，佣工和帮工的工资往往低落。
因此，各种居主，在物价高昂的年度，和劳动者订结契约，比在物价低廉的年度更为有利，而且觉得，劳动者在前一场合，比在后一场合，更为恭顺，更愿依靠他们，所以，雇主们认为，物价高昂的年度，对他们的事业更为有利，那是很自然的。此外，地主和农业家喜欢物价高昂的年度，还有一个原因，那就是，他们的地租和利润，大部分决定于粮食的价格。不过，若说一般人在为自己工作时，工作较少，在为他人工作时，工作较多，那是再荒谬不过的。贫穷的独立劳动者，一般都比按件计资的帮工勤勉，因为前者享有自身劳动的全部生产物，后者则须与雇主分享。大制造厂中的雇工，容易受恶友诱惑，往往道德沦丧；独立劳动者却不易受此影响。工资以年或月计的雇工，不论工作多少，都得到同样的工资和津贴，就这一点说，独立劳动者的工作效率比这些雇工更大得多。物价高昂的年岁，倾向于增高独立劳动者对各种帮工和佣工的比例，而物价低廉的年岁，则倾向于减低其比例。
麦桑斯是法国一位博学多能的作家，在圣·埃蒂安选举时任贡税收税官。为要说明贫民在物价低廉时所做的工作比物价高昂时多，他曾把三种制造品——埃尔伯夫的粗毛织品和卢昂遍地皆是的麻织品与丝织品——在物价低时及物价高时的产量及价值，拿来比较。据他由官署登记簿抄下的报告，这三种制造品在物价低时的生产量及价值，一般都比物价高时大；物价最低的年度，生产量与价值，往往最大，而物价最高的年度，往往最小。这三种制造品似乎都处于生产停滞状态，其生产量，逐年计算，虽略有出入，但总的说来，却是不增不减。
苏格兰的麻织品，和约克郡西区的粗毛织品，同是正在增加的制造品。其生产量与价值，虽时有变动，但大体上却在增高。不过，我曾检阅这些制造品年产额公布的记录，却不能发现年产额的变动与各时期的物价高低有什么显著关系。诚然，在物资非常不足的1740年，这两种制造品产量都有很大下降，但在物资仍是非常不足的1756年，苏格兰制造品产量却比常年多。同年，约克郡制造品产量却下降，其生产额，直至1766年，换言之，直到美洲印花税法废止以后，才恢复到1755年的数额。在1766年和1767年，约克郡制造品生产额增加到前此所未有的程度，而且从那时起不断地增加。
以贩销远地为目的的一切大制造业的产品量，与其说必然取块于产地旺季价格是高或是低，倒不如说必然取决于消费国中影响商品需求的那些情况，取决干和平或战争，取决于其他竞争制造业的盛衰，取决于那些商品的主要顾客是高兴买还是不高兴买。此外，也许在物价低廉时期制造的额外作品，有大部分，未曾登记在制造业公开记录上。离开雇主的男佣工，成为独立劳动者。妇女回到父母家中，从事纺织，给自身及家庭制造衣服。连独立劳动者也未必都制造售给大众的商品，而为邻人雇请，制造家庭用品。所以，他们的劳动产品，常没登记在公开记录上，这些记录，有时是那么夸张，而我们商人和制造业者，却往往根据这种记录，妄断最大帝国的盛衰。
虽然劳动价格的变动，不一定都与食物价格的变动一致，而且往往完全相反，但我们不可因此认为，食品价格对于劳动价格没有影响。劳动的货币价格，必然受两种情况的支配：其一，是对劳动的需求；其二，是生活必需品和便利品的价格。对劳动的需求，按照它是在增加、减少或不增不减，换言之，按照它所需要的是增加着的人口、减少着的人口或是不增不减的人口，而决定必须给予劳动者的生活必需品和便利品的数量，而劳动的货币价格，取决于购买这数量所需要的金额。所以，在食物低廉的场合，劳动的货币价格虽有时很高，但在食物昂贵而劳动需求继续不变的场合，劳动的货币价格却更高。
劳动的货币价格，在突然非常大的丰年，有时上升，而在突然非常大的荒年，有时下落，这是因为在前一场合，劳动的需求增加，而在后一场合，劳动的需求减少。在突然非常大的丰年，许多雇主手中的资金，足够维持和雇用比他们前一年所雇用的多的劳动者，而这些超过通常需要的劳动者，未必都能雇到，于是，要雇用更多劳动者的雇主，便相互竞争，这在有的时候就使劳动的货币价格及真实价格抬高起来。
在突然发生的非常大荒年，情形正相反。用来雇用劳动者的资金，既较前年度为少，便有许多人失业，于是他们为获得职业而相互竞争，这在有的时候就使劳动的真实价格与货币价格都下落。譬如在1740年这个非常大的荒年，有许多人只要有饭吃就愿工作。在后此的几个丰年里，雇用劳动者和雇工仅比较困难了。
食品涨价，会提高劳动的价格，而物价昂贵年度的荒歉，由于减少了劳动需求，因而会降低劳动的价格。反之，食品跌价，会减低劳动的价格，而物价低廉年度的丰饶，由于增加了劳动需求，因而会抬高劳动的价格。在食品价格只有一般变动的场合，那两种对立原因，似乎会互相抵消。这也许就是劳动工资所以到处都较食物价格稳定得多、经久得多的一部分原因。
劳动工资的增加，必然按照价格中工资那一部分增高的比例，抬高许多商品的价格，并按照价格增高的比例，减少国内外这些商品的消费。但是，使劳动工资增加的原因，即资本的增加，却会增加劳动生产力，使较少的劳动生产较多的产品。雇用很多劳动者的资本家，为自己的利益打算，势必妥当分配他们的业务，使他们生产尽可能多的产品。由于同一原因，他力图把他和他的工人所能想到的最好机械供给他们。在某一特殊工厂内劳动者间发生的事实，由于同一理由，也在大社会的劳动者间发生。劳动者的人数愈多，他们的分工当然就愈精密。更多人从事于发明对各人操作最适用的机械，所以这种机械就容易发明出来。由于有了这些改良的机械，许多物品能用比以前少得多的劳动生产出来。这样，劳动量的减少，就不只抵偿劳动价格的增加。
CHAPTER VIII. OF THE WAGES OF LABOUR.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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 many other, I shall not take upon me to determine. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 off 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. 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. 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 maybe 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. 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. 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 winch 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 an 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. 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. 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. 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. Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply be yond 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. A French author of great knowledge and ingenuity, Mr Messance, receiver of the taillies 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. 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 or 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. 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. Through 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. 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. 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. 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 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 me 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.
|
发表于 2015-4-27 09:06:50
提升卡
置顶卡
变色卡
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主