The component elements of Cost of Production have been set forth in the First Part of this inquiry.214 The principal of them, and so much the principal as to be nearly the sole, was found to be Labor. What the production of a thing costs to its producer, or its series of producers, is the labor expended in producing it. If we consider as the producer the capitalist who makes the advances, the word Labor may be replaced by the word Wages: what the produce costs to him, is the wages which he has had to pay. At the first glance, indeed, this seems to be only a part of his outlay, since he has not only paid wages to laborers, but has likewise provided them with tools, materials, and perhaps buildings. These tools, materials, and buildings, however, were produced by labor and capital; and their value, like that of the article to the production of which they are subservient, depends on cost of production, which again is resolvable into labor. The cost of production of broadcloth does not wholly consist in the wages of weavers; which alone are directly paid by the cloth-manufacturer. It consists also of the wages of spinners and wool-combers, and, it may be added, of shepherds, all of which the clothier has paid for in the price of yarn. It consists, too, of the wages of builders and brick-makers, which he has reimbursed in the contract price of erecting his factory. It partly consists of the wages of machine-makers, iron-founders, and miners. And to these must be added the wages of the carriers who transported any of [pg 265] the means and appliances of the production to the place where they were to be used, and the product itself to the place where it is to be sold.
The value of commodities, therefore, depends principally (we shall presently see whether it depends solely) on the quantity of labor required for their production, including in the idea of production that of conveyance to the market. But since the cost of production to the capitalist is not labor but wages, and since wages may be either greater or less, the quantity of labor being the same, it would seem that the value of the product can not be determined solely by the quantity of labor, but by the quantity together with the remuneration, and that values must partly depend on wages.
Now the relation of one thing to another can not be altered by any cause which affects them both alike. A rise or fall of general wages is a fact which affects all commodities in the same manner, and therefore affords no reason why they should exchange for each other in one rather than in another proportion. Though there is no such thing as a general rise of values, there is such a thing as a general rise of prices. As soon as we form distinctly the idea of values, we see that high or low wages can have nothing to do with them; but that high wages make high prices, is a popular and widely spread opinion. The whole amount of error involved in this proposition can only be seen thoroughly when we come to the theory of money; at present we need only say that if it be true, there can be no such thing as a real rise of wages; for if wages could not rise without a proportional rise of the price of everything, they could not, for any substantial purpose, rise at all. It must be remembered, too, that general high prices, even supposing them to exist, can be of no use to a producer or dealer, considered as such; for, if they increase his money returns, they increase in the same degree [pg 266] all his expenses. There is no mode in which capitalists can compensate themselves for a high cost of labor, through any action on values or prices. It can not be prevented from taking its effect in low profits. If the laborers really get more, that is, get the produce of more labor, a smaller percentage must remain for profit.
Although, however, general wages, whether high or low, do not affect values, yet if wages are higher in one employment than another, or if they rise or fall permanently in one employment without doing so in others, these inequalities do really operate upon values. Things, for example, which are made by skilled labor, exchange for the produce of a much greater quantity of unskilled labor, for no reason but because the labor is more highly paid. We have before remarked that the difficulty of passing from one class of employments to a class greatly superior has hitherto caused the wages of all those classes of laborers who are separated from one another by any very marked barrier to depend more than might be supposed upon the increase of the population of each class considered separately, and that the inequalities in the remuneration of labor are much greater than could exist if the competition of the laboring people generally could be brought practically to bear on each particular employment. It follows from this that wages in different employments do not rise or fall simultaneously, but are, for short and sometimes even for long periods, nearly independent of one another. All such disparities evidently alter the relative cost of production of different commodities, and will therefore be completely represented in their natural or average value.
Wages do enter into value. The relative wages of the labor necessary for producing different commodities affect their value just as much as the relative quantities of labor. [pg 267] It is true, the absolute wages paid have no effect upon values; but neither has the absolute quantity of labor. If that were to vary simultaneously and equally in all commodities, values would not be affected. If, for instance, the general efficiency of all labor were increased, so that all things without exception could be produced in the same quantity as before with a smaller amount of labor, no trace of this general diminution of cost of production would show itself in the values of commodities.
Thus far of labor or wages as an element in cost of production. But in our analysis, in the First Book, of the requisites of production, we found that there is another necessary element in it besides labor. There is also capital; and this being the result of abstinence, the produce, or its value, must be sufficient to remunerate, not only all the labor required, but the abstinence of all the persons by whom the remuneration of the different classes of laborers was advanced. The return from abstinence is Profit. And profit, we have also seen, is not exclusively the surplus remaining to the capitalist after he has been compensated for his outlay, but forms, in most cases, no unimportant part of the outlay itself. The flax-spinner, part of whose expenses consists of the purchase of flax and of machinery, has had to pay, in their price, not only the wages of the labor by which the flax was grown and the machinery made, but the profits of the grower, the flax-dresser, the miner, the iron-founder, and the machine-maker. All these profits, together with those of the spinner himself, were again advanced by the weaver, in the price of his material—linen yarn; and along with them the profits of a fresh set of machine-makers, and of the miners and iron-workers who supplied them with their metallic material. All these advances form part of the cost of production of linen. Profits, therefore, as well as wages, enter into the cost of production which determines the value of the produce.
In discussing Cost of Labor (supra, pp. 225, 226), Mr. Mill found that the advances of the immediate producer consisted [pg 268] not only of wages, but also of tools, materials, etc., in the price of which he was including the profits of an auxiliary capitalist who advanced the capital for making these tools, etc. But, then, if a line of division were to be passed down through all these advances, separating wages from profits, he urged that, if all the capitalists (auxiliary and immediate both) were one, all the advances of the capitalist might be considered as wages. Profits did not form a part of the outlay to the capitalists in the former analysis. And this seems correct enough. Now, however, he suggests that the outlay of the immediate producers should include the profit of the auxiliary capitalist. More than this, Mr. Mill now includes in cost to the capitalist the profit of the immediate capitalist. For example, in his illustration of the manufacture of linen, he includes not merely the profit of the auxiliary capital engaged in spinning and weaving, but the profit of the immediate and last capitalist, the linen-manufacturer, also. This includes in the cost of producing an article a profit not realized until after the commodity is produced.
It is now time to give a more correct idea of cost of production. Every one admits, for example, that the “cost of production” of wheat is less in the United States than in England. If, for instance, three men with a capital of one hundred dollars may on a plot of ground, A, in the United States produce one hundred bushels of wheat, it will happen that the same men and capital will only produce sixty bushels on ground, B, in England.
In ordinary language, then, we say that the cost of production is greater in England than in the United States, because the same labor and capital here produce one hundred bushels for sixty in England; or, what amounts to the same thing, that less labor and capital could produce sixty bushels in the United States than sixty bushels in England. If we suppose that one fourth of the crop is profit, and three fourths is assigned to wages in both countries, then in the United States the one hundred dollars of capital receives twenty-five bushels of profit, while in England it receives only fifteen; and the three men receive as wages in the United States twenty-five bushels each, while in England they receive only fifteen bushels each. The first important induction to be made is that where cost of production [pg 269] is low, wages and profits are high. The high productiveness of extractive industries in the United States is the reason why wages and profits are higher here than in older countries.
Now the second important question is, Is cost of production made up of wages and profits, and is it true that the cost rises with a rise of wages and profits? Certainly not. Wages and profits are both higher in the United States than in England, but no one is so absurd as to say that the cost of production of wheat (as above explained) is higher here than there. It is exactly because cost of production of wheat is lower in the United States that wages and profits measured in wheat are higher here than in England. Therefore, it can not be granted, as Mr. Mill expounds the doctrine, that cost of production is made up of wages and profits. When we speak of an increased cost of production of a given article, we mean that its production requires more labor and capital than before; and of a decrease in cost of production, that it requires less labor and capital than before; meaning by “more labor” that a given quality of labor is exerted for a longer or shorter time, and by “more capital” that a greater or less quantity of wealth abstained from is employed for a longer or shorter time; or, in other words, that laborers and capitalists undergo more or less sacrifice in exertion and abstinence, respectively, to attain a given result. This is the contribution to cost of production made by Mr. Cairnes, and briefly defined as follows: “In the case of labor, the cost of producing a given commodity will be represented by the number of average laborers employed in its production—regard at the same time being had to the severity of the work and the degree of risk it involves—multiplied by the duration of their labors. In that of abstinence, the principle is analogous; the sacrifice will be measured by the quantity of wealth abstained from, taken in connection with the risk incurred, and multiplied by the duration of the abstinence.”216
This view of cost of production takes into consideration, in the act of production, what Mr. Mill does not include, the cost, or real sacrifice, to the laborer as well as to the capitalist. It may, then, be well to state the relations of cost of production, taken in this better sense, to value.
Within competing groups, where there is free choice for labor and capital to select the most remunerative occupations, the hardest and most disagreeable employments will be best paid, and the wages and profits will be in proportion to the sacrifice involved in each case. If so, the amount paid in wages and profits represents the sacrifices in each case. [pg 270] Now, the aggregate product of an industry is the source from which is drawn its wages and profits: the aggregate wages and profits, therefore, must vary with the value of the total product. If the total value depart from the sum hitherto sufficient to pay the given wages and profits, then some will be paid proportionally less than their sacrifice. The value of a commodity, therefore, within the competing group, must conform to the costs of production. If, for example (a), the value at any time were such as not to give the laborer the usual equivalent for his sacrifice, he would change his employment to another within the group where he could get it; if (b) the share of the capitalist were at any time insufficient to give him the usual reward for his abstinence, he would change the investment of his capital. Therefore, within such limits as allow a free competition of labor and capital, value must conform itself to cost of production.
Not so, however, with the products of non-competing industrial groups. As shown by Mr. Mill, labor does not pass freely from one employment to another; and it must be said that capital does not either, although vastly more ready to move than labor. In a large and thinly settled country capital does not move freely over the whole area of industry; if it did, different rates of profit would not prevail, as we all know they do, in the United States. Now, as before stated, the total value of the commodities resulting from the exertions of each group of producers is the source from which wages and profits are drawn. The aggregate wages and profits in each industry will vary with the value of the aggregate products. But this total value depends upon what it will exchange for of the products of other groups; that is, this value depends on the reciprocal demand of one group for the commodities of the other groups, as compared with the demand of the other groups for its products. For example, although cost of production is low in group A, if the demand from outside groups were to be strong, the exchange value of A's products would rise, and A would get more of other goods in exchange; that is, the total produce is large, but a second increment, arising from a higher exchange value, is to be shared among A's laborers and capitalists. A few years ago, about 1878-1879, the value of wheat in the United States rose because of the increased demand from Europe, where the harvests had been unusually deficient. There had been no falling off in the productiveness of the farming industry of the United States to cause the increased price; but the relative demand of other industrial groups for wheat, the product of the farming industry, raised the exchange value of wheat, and so increased the industrial rewards of those engaged as laborers and capitalists in farming. So [pg 271] it is to be concluded that since there is no free movement of labor and capital between non-competing groups, wages and profits may constantly remain at rates which are not in correspondence with the actual sacrifice, or cost, to labor and capital in different groups; hence, their products do not exchange for each other in proportion to their costs of production. Reciprocal demand is the law of their value.
It will be said, at once, that the foregoing conception of cost of production is entirely opposed to the language of practical men of affairs. They constantly speak of higher or lower wages as increasing their cost of production, or as affecting their ability to compete with foreigners. So universal a usage implies a foundation of truth which demands attention. Wages do represent cost to the capitalist, that is, the chief part of the outlay he makes in order to get a given return; but we have already seen this, and, in the language of Political Economy, termed it “cost of labor” to the capitalist. When the business world use the phrase cost of production, they use it in the sense of cost of labor, as hitherto explained. When they are obliged by strikers to pay more wages, they say that it increases their “cost of production,” meaning the cost to them of getting their product, and that it affects their profits. This, then, will show that there is no objection to be urged, in its true sense, against the phrase cost of production, arising from its misuse in the common language of business.
The real connection between the proper conception of cost of production and cost of labor is, however, worth attention. It touches cost of labor through that one of its elements called “efficiency of labor.” The more productive an industry is, the higher its wages and profits may be, and it is exactly at this point that more attention should be given to the relations of labor and capital. If productiveness can be increased, higher wages as well as higher profits are possible. The proper understanding of the idea that where cost of production is low wages and profits are high, throws a flood of light on many industrial questions in the United States. In the connection in which it stands, as I have shown, to cost of labor, it means that if commodities can be produced at a less sacrifice to labor and capital by the use of machinery and new processes, higher wages are consistent with a lower price of the given product. It explains the fact that, owing to skill or natural resources, labor, although paid much higher rates, can produce articles cheaper than laborers who are less highly paid. Mr. Brassey217 has pointed out that English wages are higher than on the Continent; and yet England, through low cost of production, [pg 272] owing to skill, natural resources, etc., can produce so much more of commodities for a given outlay that (while keeping her usual rate of profit) she can generally undersell her competitors who employ cheaper labor. The same observations apply to the United States; but the question of foreign competition will be further discussed (Book III, Chap. XX) after we have studied international trade and values.
“And here it may be well to state precisely what is to be understood by a ‘fluctuation of the market,’ as distinguished from those changes of normal price which we have been considering. Normal price, as we have seen, is governed, according to the circumstances of the case [as to whether there is free industrial competition or not], by one or other of two causes—cost of production and reciprocal demand. A change in normal price, therefore, is a change which is the consequence of an alteration in one or other of these conditions. So long as the determining condition—be it cost of production or reciprocal demand—remains constant, the normal price must be considered as remaining constant; but, the normal price remaining constant, the market price (which, as we have seen, depends on the opinion of dealers respecting the state of supply and demand in relation to the particular article) may undergo a change—may deviate, that is to say, either upward or downward from the normal level. Such changes of price, occurring while the permanent conditions of production remain unaffected, can only be temporary, calling into action, as they do, forces which at once tend to restore the normal state of things: they may therefore be properly described as ‘fluctuations of the market.’ ”218
Value, however, being purely relative, can not depend upon absolute profits, no more than upon absolute wages, but upon relative profits only. High general profits can not, any more than high general wages, be a cause of high values, because high general values are an absurdity and a contradiction. In so far as profits enter into the cost of production of all things, they can not affect the value of any. It is only by entering in a greater degree into the cost of production of some things than of others, that they can have any influence on value.
Profits, however, may enter more largely into the conditions of production of one commodity than of another, even [pg 273] though there be no difference in the rate of profit between the two employments. The one commodity may be called upon to yield a profit during a longer period of time than the other. The example by which this case is usually illustrated is that of wine. Suppose a quantity of wine and a quantity of cloth, made by equal amounts of labor, and that labor paid at the same rate. The cloth does not improve by keeping; the wine does. Suppose that, to attain the desired quality, the wine requires to be kept five years. The producer or dealer will not keep it, unless at the end of five years he can sell it for as much more than the cloth as amounts to five years' profit, accumulated at compound interest. The wine and the cloth were made by the same original outlay. Here, then, is a case in which the natural values, relatively to one another, of two commodities, do not conform to their cost of production alone, but to their cost of production plus something else—unless, indeed, for the sake of generality in the expression, we include the profit which the wine-merchant foregoes during the five years, in the cost of production of the wine, looking upon it as a kind of additional outlay, over and above his other advances, for which outlay he must be indemnified at last.
All commodities made by machinery are assimilated, at least approximately, to the wine in the preceding example. In comparison with things made wholly by immediate labor, profits enter more largely into their cost of production. Suppose two commodities, A and B, each requiring a year for its production, by means of a capital which we will on [pg 274] this occasion denote by money, and suppose it to be £1,000. A is made wholly by immediate labor, the whole £1,000 being expended directly in wages. B is made by means of labor which cost £500 and a machine which cost £500, and the machine is worn out by one year's use. The two commodities will be of exactly the same value, which, if computed in money, and if profits are 20 per cent per annum, will be £1,200. But of this £1,200, in the case of A, only £200, or one sixth, is profit; while in the case of B there is not only the £200, but as much of £500 (the price of the machine) as consisted of the profits of the machine-maker; which, if we suppose the machine also to have taken a year for its production, is again one sixth. So that in the case of A only one sixth of the entire return is profit, while in B the element of profit comprises not only a sixth of the whole, but an additional sixth of a large part.
From the unequal proportion in which, in different employments, profits enter into the advances of the capitalist, and therefore into the returns required by him, two consequences follow in regard to value. (1). One is, that commodities do not exchange in the ratio simply of the quantities of labor required to produce them; not even if we allow for the unequal rates at which different kinds of labor are permanently remunerated.
(2.) A second consequence is, that every rise or fall of general profits will have an effect on values. Not, indeed, by raising or lowering them generally (which, as we have so often said, is a contradiction and an impossibility), but by altering the proportion in which the values of things are affected by the unequal lengths of time for which profit is due. When two things, though made by equal labor, are of unequal value because the one is called upon to yield profit for a greater number of years or months than the other, this difference of value will be greater when profits are greater, and less when they are less. The wine which has to yield five years' profit more than the cloth will surpass it in value much more if profits are forty per cent than if they are only twenty.
[pg 275]It follows from this that even a general rise of wages, when it involves a real increase in the cost of labor, does in some degree influence values. It does not affect them in the manner vulgarly supposed, by raising them universally; but an increase in the cost of labor lowers profits, and therefore lowers in natural values the things into which profits enter in a greater proportion than the average, and raises those into which they enter in a less proportion than the average. All commodities in the production of which machinery bears a large part, especially if the machinery is very durable, are lowered in their relative value when profits fall; or, what is equivalent, other things are raised in value relatively to them. This truth is sometimes expressed in a phraseology more plausible than sound, by saying that a rise of wages raises the value of things made by labor in comparison with those made by machinery. But things made by machinery, just as much as any other things, are made by labor—namely, the labor which made the machinery itself—the only difference being that profits enter somewhat more largely into the production of things for which machinery is used, though the principal item of the outlay is still labor.
Cost of Production consists of several elements, some of which are constant and universal, others occasional. The universal elements of cost of production are the wages of the labor, and the profits of the capital. The occasional elements are taxes, and any extra cost occasioned by a scarcity value of some of the requisites. Besides the natural and necessary elements in cost of production—labor and profits—there are others which are artificial and casual, as, for instance, a tax. The taxes on hops and malt are as much a part of the cost of production of those articles as the wages of the laborers. The expenses which the law imposes, as well as those which the nature of things imposes, must be reimbursed with the ordinary profit from the value of the produce, or the things will not continue to be produced. But the influence of taxation on value is subject to the same conditions as the influence of wages and of profits. It is not [pg 276] general taxation, but differential taxation, that produces the effect. If all productions were taxed so as to take an equal percentage from all profits, relative values would be in no way disturbed. If only a few commodities were taxed, their value would rise; and if only a few were left untaxed, their value would fall.
But the case in which scarcity value chiefly operates in adding to cost of production is the case of natural agents. These, when unappropriated, and to be had for the taking, do not enter into the cost of production, save to the extent of the labor which may be necessary to fit them for use. Even when appropriated, they do not (as we have already seen) bear a value from the mere fact of the appropriation, but only from scarcity—that is, from limitation of supply. But it is equally certain that they often do bear a scarcity value.
No one can deny that rent sometimes enters into cost of production [of other than agricultural products]. If I buy or rent a piece of ground, and build a cloth-manufactory on it, the ground-rent forms legitimately a part of my expenses of production, which must be repaid by the product. And since all factories are built on ground, and most of them in places where ground is peculiarly valuable, the rent paid for it must, on the average, be compensated in the values of all things made in factories. In what sense it is true that rent does not enter into the cost of production or affect the value of agricultural produce will be shown in the succeeding chapter.
We have investigated the laws which determine the value of two classes of commodities—the small class which, being limited to a definite quantity, have their value entirely determined by demand and supply, save that their cost of production (if they have any) constitutes a minimum below which they can not permanently fall; and the large class, which can be multiplied ad libitum by labor and capital, and of which the cost of production fixes the maximum as well as the minimum at which they can permanently exchange [if there be free competition]. But there is still a third kind of commodities to be considered—those which have, not one, but several costs of production; which can always be increased in quantity by labor and capital, but not by the same amount of labor and capital; of which so much may be produced at a given cost, but a further quantity not without a greater cost. These commodities form an intermediate class, partaking of the character of both the others. The principal of them is agricultural produce. We have already made abundant reference to the fundamental truth that in agriculture, the state of the art being given, doubling the labor does not double the produce; that, if an increased quantity of produce is required, the additional supply is obtained at a greater cost than the first. Where a hundred quarters of corn are all that is at present required from the lands of a given village, if the growth of population made it necessary to raise a hundred more, either by breaking up worse land now uncultivated, or by a more elaborate cultivation of the land already under the plow, the additional hundred, or some part of them, at least, might cost double or treble as much per quarter as the former supply.
[pg 278]If the first hundred quarters were all raised at the same expense (only the best land being cultivated), and if that expense would be remunerated with the ordinary profit by a price of 20s. the quarter, the natural price of wheat, so long as no more than that quantity was required, would be 20s.; and it could only rise above or fall below that price from vicissitudes of seasons, or other casual variations in supply. But if the population of the district advanced, a time would arrive when more than a hundred quarters would be necessary to feed it. We must suppose that there is no access to any foreign supply. By the hypothesis, no more than a hundred quarters can be produced in the district, unless by either bringing worse land into cultivation, or altering the system of culture to a more expensive one. Neither of these things will be done without a rise in price. This rise of price will gradually be brought about by the increasing demand. So long as the price has risen, but not risen enough to repay with the ordinary profit the cost of producing an additional quantity, the increased value of the limited supply partakes of the nature of a scarcity value. Suppose that it will not answer to cultivate the second best land, or land of the second degree of remoteness, for a less return than 25s. the quarter; and that this price is also necessary to remunerate the expensive operations by which an increased produce might be raised from land of the first quality. If so, the price will rise, through the increased demand, until it reaches 25s. That will now be the natural price; being the price without which the quantity, for which society has a demand at that price, will not be produced. At that price, however, society can go on for some time longer; could go on perhaps forever, if population did not increase. The price, having attained that point, will not again permanently recede (though it may fall temporarily from accidental abundance); nor will it advance further, so long as society can obtain the supply it requires without a second increase of the cost of production.
In the case supposed, different portions of the supply of [pg 279] corn have different costs of production. Though the twenty, or fifty, or one hundred and fifty quarters additional have been produced at a cost proportional to 25s., the original hundred quarters per annum are still produced at a cost only proportional to 20s. This is self-evident, if the original and the additional supply are produced on different qualities of land. It is equally true if they are produced on the same land. Suppose that land of the best quality, which produced one hundred quarters at 20s., has been made to produce one hundred and fifty by an expensive process, which it would not answer to undertake without a price of 25s. The cost which requires 25s. is incurred for the sake of fifty quarters alone: the first hundred might have continued forever to be produced at the original cost, and with the benefit, on that quantity, of the whole rise of price caused by the increased demand: no one, therefore, will incur the additional expense for the sake of the additional fifty, unless they alone will pay for the whole of it. The fifty, therefore, will be produced at their natural price, proportioned to the cost of their production; while the other hundred will now bring in 5s. a quarter more than their natural price—than the price corresponding to, and sufficing to remunerate, their lower cost of production.
If the production of any, even the smallest, portion of the supply requires as a necessary condition a certain price, that price will be obtained for all the rest. We are not able to buy one loaf cheaper than another because the corn from which it was made, being grown on a richer soil, has cost less to the grower. The value, therefore, of an article (meaning its natural, which is the same with its average value) is determined by the cost of that portion of the supply which is produced and brought to market at the greatest expense. This is the Law of Value of the third of the three classes into which all commodities are divided.
If the portion of produce raised in the most unfavorable circumstances obtains a value proportioned to its cost of production; all the portions raised in more favorable circumstances, [pg 280] selling as they must do at the same value, obtain a value more than proportioned to their cost of production.
The owners, however, of those portions of the produce enjoy a privilege; they obtain a value which yields them more than the ordinary profit. The advantage depends on the possession of a natural agent of peculiar quality, as, for instance, of more fertile land than that which determines the general value of the commodity; and when this natural agent is not owned by themselves, the person who does own it is able to exact from them, in the form of rent, the whole extra gain derived from its use. We are thus brought by another road to the Law of Rent, investigated in the concluding chapter of the Second Book. Rent, we again see, is the difference between the unequal returns to different parts of the capital employed on the soil. Whatever surplus any portion of agricultural capital produces, beyond what is produced by the same amount of capital on the worst soil, or under the most expensive mode of cultivation, which the existing demands of society compel a recourse to, that surplus will naturally be paid as rent from that capital, to the owner of the land on which it is employed.
The discussion of rent is here followed wholly from the point of view of value, while before (Book II, Chap. VI) the law of rent was reached through a limitation of the quantity of land due to the influence of population. In the former case the rent and produce were stated in bushels. By introducing price now (as the convenient symbol of value), instead of the separate increased demands of population in our illustration than used (p. 240), it will be seen how the same operation, looking at it solely in respect to value, brings us to the same law:
| Price per Bushel. | A | B | C | D | |||
| 24 bushels | 18 bushels | 12 bushels | 6 bushels | ||||
| Total value of product. | Rent. | Total value of product. | Rent. | Total value of product. | Rent. | Total value of product. | |
| $1.00 | $24.00 | $0.00 | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... |
| $1.33 | $32.00 | $8.00 | $24.00 | $0.00 | .... | .... | .... |
| $2.00 | $48.00 | $24.00 | $36.00 | $12.00 | $24.00 | $0.00 | .... |
| $4.00 | $96.00 | $72.00 | $72.00 | $48.00 | $48.00 | $24.00 | $24.00 |
It was long thought by political economists, among the rest even by Adam Smith, that the produce of land is always at a monopoly value, because (they said), in addition to the ordinary rate of profit, it always yields something further for rent. This we now see to be erroneous. A thing can not be at a monopoly value when its supply can be increased to an indefinite extent if we are only willing to incur the cost. As long as there is any land fit for cultivation, which at the existing price can not be profitably cultivated at all, there must be some land a little better, which will yield the ordinary profit, but allow nothing for rent: and that land, if within the boundary of a farm, will be cultivated by the farmer; if not so, probably by the proprietor, or by some other person on sufferance. Some such land at least, under cultivation, there can scarcely fail to be.
Rent, therefore, forms no part of the cost of production which determines the value of agricultural produce. The land or the capital most unfavorably circumstanced among those actually employed, pays no rent, and that land or capital determines the cost of production which regulates the value of the whole produce. Thus rent is, as we have already seen, no cause of value, but the price of the privilege which the inequality of the returns to different portions of agricultural produce confers on all except the least favored portion.
Rent, in short, merely equalizes the profits of different farming capitals, by enabling the landlord to appropriate all extra gains occasioned by superiority of natural advantages. If all landlords were unanimously to forego their rent, they would but transfer it to the farmers, without benefiting the consumer; for the existing price of corn would still be an indispensable condition of the production of part of the existing supply, and if a part obtained that price the whole would obtain it. Rent, therefore, unless artificially increased by restrictive laws, is no burden on the consumer: it does not raise the price of corn, and is no otherwise a detriment to the public than inasmuch as if the [pg 282] state had retained it, or imposed an equivalent in the shape of a land-tax, it would then have been a fund applicable to general instead of private advantage.
Agricultural productions are not the only commodities which have several different costs of production at once, and which, in consequence of that difference, and in proportion to it, afford a rent. Mines are also an instance. Almost all kinds of raw material extracted from the interior of the earth—metals, coals, precious stones, etc.—are obtained from mines differing considerably in fertility—that is, yielding very different quantities of the product to the same quantity of labor and capital. There are, perhaps, cases in which it is impossible to extract from a particular vein, in a given time, more than a certain quantity of ore, because there is only a limited surface of the vein exposed, on which more than a certain number of laborers can not be simultaneously employed. But this is not true of all mines. In collieries, for example, some other cause of limitation must be sought for. In some instances the owners limit the quantity raised, in order not too rapidly to exhaust the mine; in others there are said to be combinations of owners, to keep up a monopoly price by limiting the production. Whatever be the causes, it is a fact that mines of different degrees of richness are in operation, and since the value of the produce must be proportional to the cost of production at the worst mine (fertility and situation taken together), it is more than proportional to that of the best. All mines superior in produce to the worst actually worked will yield, therefore, a rent equal to the excess. They may yield more; and the worst mine may itself yield a rent. Mines being comparatively few, their qualities do not graduate gently into one another, as the qualities of land do; and the demand may be such as to keep the value of the produce considerably above the cost of production at the worst mine now worked, without [pg 283] being sufficient to bring into operation a still worse. During the interval, the produce is really at a scarcity value.
Fisheries are another example. Fisheries in the open sea are not appropriated, but fisheries in lakes or rivers almost always are so, and likewise oyster-beds or other particular fishing-grounds on coasts. We may take salmon-fisheries as an example of the whole class. Some rivers are far more productive in salmon than others. None, however, without being exhausted, can supply more than a very limited demand. All others, therefore, will, if appropriated, afford a rent equal to the value of their superiority.
Both in the case of mines and of fisheries, the natural order of events is liable to be interrupted by the opening of a new mine, or a new fishery, of superior quality to some of those already in use. In this case, when things have permanently adjusted themselves, the result will be that the scale of qualities which supply the market will have been cut short at the lower end, while a new insertion will have been made in the scale at some point higher up; and the worst mine or fishery in use—the one which regulates the rents of the superior qualities and the value of the commodity—will be a mine or fishery of better quality than that by which they were previously regulated.
The ground-rent of a building, and the rent of a garden or park attached to it, will not be less than the rent which the same land would afford in agriculture, but may be greater than this to an indefinite amount; the surplus being either in consideration of beauty or of convenience, the convenience often consisting in superior facilities for pecuniary gain. Sites of remarkable beauty are generally limited in supply, and therefore, if in great demand, are at a scarcity value. Sites superior only in convenience are governed as to their value by the ordinary principles of rent. The ground-rent of a house in a small village is but little higher than the rent of a similar patch of ground in the open fields.
Suppose the various kinds of land to be represented by the alphabet; that those below O pay no agricultural rent, and that [pg 284] all lands increase in fertility and situation as we approach the beginning of the alphabet, but which, as far up as K, are used in agriculture; that higher than K all are more profitably used for building purposes, viz.:
A, B, C, ... | K, L, M, N, O, | ... X, Y, Z.
Now it will happen that land is chosen for building purposes irrespective of its fertility for agricultural purposes. It will not be true, as some may think, that no land will be used for building until it will pay a ground-rent greater than the greatest agricultural rent paid by any piece of land. It is not true, for example, if N be selected for a building-lot, that it must pay a ground-rent as high as the agricultural rent of K, the most fertile land cultivated in agriculture. It must pay a ground-rent higher only than it itself would pay, if cultivated. It is only necessary that it pay more than the same (not better) land would pay as rent if used only in agriculture.
The rents of wharfage, dock, and harbor room, water-power, and many other privileges, may be analyzed on similar principles. Take the case, for example, of a patent or exclusive privilege for the use of a process by which the cost of production is lessened. If the value of the product continues to be regulated by what it costs to those who are obliged to persist in the old process, the patentee will make an extra profit equal to the advantage which his process possesses over theirs. This extra profit is essentially similar to rent, and sometimes even assumes the form of it, the patentee allowing to other producers the use of his privilege in consideration of an annual payment.
The extra gains which any producer or dealer obtains through superior talents for business, or superior business arrangements, are very much of a similar kind. If all his competitors had the same advantages, and used them, the benefit would be transferred to their customers through the diminished value of the article; he only retains it for himself because he is able to bring his commodity to market at a lower cost, while its value is determined by a higher.219
A general résumé of the laws of value, where a free movement of labor and capital exists, may now be briefly made in the following form:
Exchange value has three conditions, viz.:
1. Utility, or ability to satisfy a desire (U).
2. Difficulty of attainment (D), according to which there are three classes of
commodities.
3. Transferableness.
Of the second condition, there are three classes:
1. Those limited in supply—e.g., ancient pictures or monopolized articles.
2. Those whose supply is capable of indefinite increase by the use of
labor and capital.
3. Those whose supply is gained at a gradually increasing cost, under the law
of diminishing returns.
Of those limited in supply, their value is regulated by Demand and Supply. The only limit is U.
Of those whose supply is capable of indefinite increase, their normal and permanent value is regulated by Cost of Production, and their temporary or market value is regulated by Demand and Supply, oscillating around Cost of Production (which consists of the amount of labor and abstinence required).
Of those whose supply is gained at a gradually increasing cost, their normal value is regulated by the Cost of Production of that portion of the whole amount of the whole amount needed, which is brought to market at the greatest expense, and their market value is regulated by Demand and Supply (as in class 2).
If there be no free competition between industries, then the value of those commodities which has been said, in the above classification, to depend on cost of production, will be governed by the law of Reciprocal Demand.