The least efficient men in any trade always suffer most. The change crushes hardest the man at the margin of employment. The more skilled workman can hasten his pace and still earn a living wage in competition with a machine, while the less skilled can but drop out entirely, innocent victims of an economic change, sacrifices to the cause of industrial progress. Happily such pathetic incidents are relatively not numerous. Most machinery is introduced in commercial centers, and gradually spreads to other factories in such a way that most men can adapt themselves to the change. The effect of machinery must not be judged by the extreme cases. It was found that there were more hand-looms in use in England in 1850 than fifty years before, though in the meantime power-looms had displaced the hand-looms in all the great factories.
2. After time for adjustment, the total sum of employment is as great as before, but the labor is differently distributed. The "lump of labor" idea, as it is called, is widely held, especially among workingmen. The notion is that there is exactly so much labor predetermined to be done; therefore, if machines are introduced, there is that much less for men to do. The logical conclusion easily drawn is that every machine reduces wages. Few, however, would go on to the further conclusion that in the aggregate the existing machinery, like an enormous vampire, is sucking the life-blood of the working-people,—though traces of such a notion frequently appear.
If extreme examples are taken, it may be made to appear either that an increase or that a decrease of employment results from machinery. Industries grade off from those that are capable of developing a greater and greater demand, to those at the other extreme that are capable of a very slight increase, as a result of a lowering of the price. There seems to be practically no limit to the consumption of textiles, provided their price falls; the demand for dress alone is indefinitely expansible. Queen Elizabeth, who had a different dress for every day in the year, has many potential imitators. There is a constant increase relatively, as well as absolutely, in the number employed in transportation, as each census shows; there are more railroad men relatively than there were stage-drivers and teamsters before the day of railroads. The number of people now engaged in printing books and papers is larger by far than in the days when all the books of the world were written by the old monks in their cloisters. The proportion of workers in agriculture, on the other hand, is less than it formerly was. In part this is a change in appearance only, for the farmer once made a large part of his tools which are now made by workers employed in manufactures, yet who in a very real way are aiding in agriculture. In part the change is, however, the effect of the use of machinery and other improvements in agricultural processes. The amount of raw-food products required for each hundred persons is quite inelastic. As it becomes possible to expend more for food, the change is made in quality, variety, flavor, rather than in quantity. The greater part of the saving in the cost of food is, however, expended in other products, and the labor saved in agriculture finds employment in supplying these rising wants. In other cases also, new industries are made possible as machines liberate energy from the production of the more necessary goods. At each census it is necessary to change the schedule of occupations, because men have adopted callings unknown before.
3. In some cases the introduction of new machines injures particular workmen. The only reason for the use of machinery is to improve the quality or to lower the price of products. If the workers can do nothing but blindly pursue the same tasks, it is to be expected that the wages of hand-labor will fall in a particular trade into which machinery is suddenly introduced. When, as sometimes happens, employers introduce machines for the immediate purpose of breaking a strike, the workmen are convinced that machinery is the enemy of labor.
Because the extensive introduction of machinery in England was at first accompanied by the unhappy result of a lengthening of the hours of labor in factories, this result was deemed to be necessary in all other cases. It was in fact quite abnormal, and has not been seen elsewhere. The owners of factories wished to keep their machines employed as many hours as possible; the laboring classes of England, being at the same time demoralized and depressed by industrial and social influences that had no logical connection with machinery, had no power to resist this movement. In all other countries of Europe and in America, where the introduction of machinery has been more gradual and normal, it has been followed immediately by a shortening of working hours, as eventually it was in England also.
4. Indeed, the economic effect of improved appliances is logically and inevitably to raise wages. It has been shown above, in the discussion of wages, that if the efficiency of machines increases faster than does the number of workers who use them, the marginal application of labor stops at the higher uses or services of agents and is not forced to the lower. The more perfect the economic environment, the higher the incomes even of those who own no part of the machinery. A part of this benefit may appear in the form of higher money wages received, a part in the form of the lower price of things bought. Real wages are the essential thing, and as a consumer the laborer shares with every other member of society in the benefits of improved machinery. The benefits resulting from greater abundance are diffused, and as goods are brought from the high, or scarcity, end of the scale of value down toward the level of free goods, everybody gains by the abundance and cheapness.
The general, or average, gain is not to be judged by comparing the conditions of the lowest grade of society with those of fifty years ago, for while that grade may have been bettered only a little, it has been possible for large numbers to rise to higher grades because of the use of machinery. The physical tasks are to-day much lighter than ever before, and a larger proportion of society is engaged in industries that require skill and thought rather than physical labor. That portion of the work is being more and more shifted upon machines. It is important, though, to distinguish between classes of workers in judging of the benefits and evils of machines. A machine is "an iron man," it has been said, and comes into competition with other men to lower their wages by outworking and underbidding them. But this iron man can do only automatic tasks; it is not capable of exercising judgment. Every intelligent laborer who can adjust, adapt, fit himself for more intelligent action will rise above the machine and profit by its presence. But the crude physical labor which can compete only on the plane of automatic machines, must find its field of employment more and more hedged in. If the wages of unskilled labor are not depressed, it is because of the enterprise of others who rise to more skilled employments and thus reduce the competitors of the lowest rank.
5. The early effects of the factory system on the health, intelligence, and morals of the workers often have been bad; but not necessarily the abiding effects. Some kinds of machines can be more profitably used when they are grouped in great factories, and, where this is common, it is spoken of as the factory system. In the ideal modern factory (realized in few cases) each smaller machine is a part of a larger organization of machinery, so perfect that the material goes in at one end of the building and out at the other without the loss of a single motion. Factories compel great numbers of laborers to live near each other and to work together. The sudden crowding together of people into new social relations is usually bad for morals. Men are moral under the eyes of their neighbors, acquaintances, and families; habits become adjusted to right standards, and the temptations in new conditions are always great. Until of late, engineering science has not been able to deal with the problems that arise where population is densely crowded, and the early factories with their surroundings were most unsanitary. Under the degrading conditions that resulted in some places, especially in England, the effect of machinery on the intelligence of the workers was bad. Whether this is its natural result is debatable, but the factory worker in general does not appear to be less intelligent than the agricultural worker. The alertness of the city dweller is due doubtless to social contact more than to the immediate work he does. This work may or may not be less thought-awakening than work with simple tools. There is a general improvement along all the lines of intelligence, morals, and health. The conditions in the cities as regards health and morals are approaching those of agricultural communities. While many factory districts are forlorn, there may be seen around many factories more happy conditions, better buildings, better sanitation, increased leisure for workers, workmen's clubs, educational agencies, and many other evidences of civic and social progress.
6. The great social consequences flowing from the concentration of industry and wealth are the most serious problems in the relation of machinery to labor. The ownership of tools was widely diffused in medieval times. It is not yet evident how many can own a share in great factories, but the control drifts into few hands. It is not yet clear what social effects great corporations will have on our democratic institutions. Many problems of large industry remain to be solved in the near future. The question in the old form, as to the effect of machinery on labor, is no longer open. It has been clearly answered by experience and explained by theory: the economic effect of machinery is to lift the productiveness and efficiency of the average man. The benefits are unequally distributed, but nearly all share in them to some degree. The question which the future will have to answer is, What will be the social and political effects of the great fortunes that have been made possible by the enormous development of machinery?
1. A trade-union is an association of wage-workers for purposes of mutual information, mutual help, and for the raising of wages. The term trade-union is used in a general sense both of combinations of workers in the same trade, and of men in different trades, though usually the latter are called labor-unions. The "Knights of Labor" is a good example of the labor-union, the "American Federation of Labor" of a combination of trade-unions. The Knights of Labor is composed of local branches to which workers of every class except lawyers and saloon-keepers are admitted. The Federation of Labor, however, is composed of chapters, or lodges, that are homogeneous, all the men of each lodge being in the same trade.
The definition given is broad enough to include the various degrees of help given and the various methods adopted by trade-unions to accomplish their objects. Trade-unions are mutual-benefit associations: insurance against accident, sickness, death, or lack of employment, forms an important part, and in some cases almost the whole of their work. All unions in a measure serve their members as employment bureaus, while in some unions this is a most important feature. Through trade-papers, correspondence, and personal meetings, information is exchanged regarding trade conditions, and great mutual service is thus rendered. But a great deal of the help given is in the more impersonal economic ways: help to get from the employers better wages, to secure shorter hours, to improve in various ways the conditions of employment.
2. The organization of workers has resulted from the separation of the economic and personal interests of employers and workmen. The control of industry has become more concentrated during the age of machinery, and this has reduced the feeling of economic unity among the different ranks of industry. There is now to the average workman no possibility of becoming a master, an employer. The largeness of industry forbids, moreover, the meeting and personal acquaintance of employer and workman which were before possible. Misunderstandings grow when men cannot talk over their differences. The social chasm has widened between the workmen and the responsible director of industry. As a result of these changes, the attitude of the employer very often has become that of the buyer of labor as a mere ware. He has with the mass of his employees no personal relations whatever. Under these conditions, when the employer feels the presence of competition, he is more likely to force the lowest wage that is possible. It is not unusual for the immediate direction of factories to be intrusted to paid managers, who are responsible to the stockholders and whose work is judged only by the dividends they succeed in earning. Many examples might be found where the managers or the resident owners have wished to pursue a more liberal policy than the absentee shareholders would permit.
3. The need of organization of labor has grown with the growth of factories and with the loss of personal touch among the workers. This is another aspect of the point just mentioned. The smaller the number of employers, the easier is it by an understanding to suppress competition on their side. If there is only one factory of a kind in a town or city, the employer is able to drive a harder bargain with the worker. Especially in times of industrial depression is a change of employment difficult for the laborer; it involves much risk, and loss of time and money in moving. In the long run competition must be felt even in such cases. The unfair employer will find his workmen drifting away, his force reduced in number and quality, and his evil reputation going abroad among workmen. But there is a great deal of friction in this adjustment and the loss falls largely upon the workman. In a large industry, especially, the workers have no personal acquaintance with each other, nothing to give them a sense of unity and power. In the old-fashioned shop, with its close association and its interchange of views, could grow up a strong public opinion; but in the wilderness of a modern factory the worker may be unknown in name and character to the man who touches elbows with him. Moreover, in America differences in nationality and in speech among immigrant workers is often an effective factor in preventing the assertion of their interests. There is an analogy (though it is only an analogy) between these conditions and the political conditions that have led pure democracies to give way to representative governments. So long as a community is small and men know each other personally, there may be popular government, but when the number becomes larger the only way in which public opinion can be concentrated and made effective is by delegating the functions of government to representatives.
4. The main objects of labor-unions to-day are to improve conditions in their working places, to maintain or increase wages, and to shorten working hours. Better conditions of safety and sanitation in their work were not the first thought of the unions. The workers, as a result of habit and ignorance, were strangely unconcerned about this matter. Reforms in this direction at the outset had to come largely from sympathetic observers. But since better ideals have been developed, organized laborers strive to improve the sanitary, moral, and other conditions in the places of work. Their main object, however, was for a long time to raise wages, or to resist any decrease. Shorter hours have been a prime object of recent years, and almost coördinate with that of higher wages. The eight-hour movement has declined somewhat of late, but a few years ago it seemed possible that the eight-hour day would become the rule. This aim has never been lost sight of, however, and now and then another step is taken toward it. Labor leaders have repeatedly asserted in recent years, when the two demands have been made together, that shorter hours were more desirable than increased wages.
1. The union's first aim is to get control of all the labor force in the market, and to minimize competition among workers. Every labor federation aims to extend its control to every branch of its trade. A sense of wrong is one of the strongest forces to bring the workers into the organization. The appeal to a common interest is effective in times of great grievance, as it was effective in the dangerous times of the American Revolution, though failing during the Confederation. The unwilling are first persuaded, then coerced by threats, by petty persecutions, by the most cruel of all peaceful weapons, social ostracism, and finally by personal violence. The "public opinion" and class feeling fostered among workers by their organization are analogous to the sense of patriotism and loyalty in the country at large, and at times displace it, as is seen in the opposition to the militia and to the maintenance of public order at times of strikes. The individual who declines to enter the union is denounced as a traitor and made to feel the scorn of his associates. When all these measures fail, pressure is brought to bear upon the employer to get him to force the unwilling workers into the union.
2. Its next aim is to use collective in the place of individual bargaining, to force as much as the competitive wage, and more if possible. The term collective bargaining has been much used to describe bargaining between a group of labor leaders, the delegated representatives of the workingmen, and a group of employers or directors. It is sometimes claimed that all the trade-union seeks is to put the workman on an equality with the employer in bargaining, enabling him to get all he would if competition were free on both sides. It is said that organized labor simply prevents the employer from following the maxim of Napoleon to "divide and conquer," from meeting his employees one by one and forcing his own terms upon them. But the most effective argument in organizing the trade-union is that it forces a higher wage, more than the market would warrant. It is sometimes assumed by labor leaders that competitive wages would be very low, almost starvation wages, and anything above that level is credited to the work of the union; while in other cases where the wages are already large, the purpose frankly avowed is to limit the labor supply in the particular trade and to force a monopoly wage by any means possible. One's opinion of trade-unions is likely to differ according as they work in one or the other of these ways. The impartial onlooker sympathizes with the efforts of the trade-unions in so far as they serve merely to put the workers on an equality with the employers in bargaining. The public wants to see "fair play," and up to a certain point the union is merely a device to get fair play. But if the union is a device to defeat competition, to force artificially high wages, it will be judged differently. The public readily sees that if the unions force more than a fair and open market affords, it is rarely at the expense of the employer; that in the long run it is at the expense of the purchasing public itself, including the unprivileged workmen shut out from the monopoly of labor.
3. In order to accomplish their ends, the trade-unions seek to control their employers' business in various ways. They demand, first, that no non-union men shall be employed even at union wages; they demand that the employer shall help them to force his employees into the unions. In this very usual demand for the "closed shop" or "union shop" the public can see very little justice. On this point, nearly always, unions forfeit in a strike the sympathy of the public; yet the unions assert that it is almost absolutely necessary to gain this point in order to carry out their objects. If a union and a non-union man work side by side there are many ways in which the employer may make the union man suffer. If business slackens, it is likely to be the union man that is discharged; if any preference is given, it is to the non-union man. Certainly all will agree that if the unions are to get the strength to enforce all their demands it is essential that they make good this claim which leaves the employer almost helpless. Yet it certainly is not essential to the accomplishing of valuable services for the members of the union. The educational and mutual-benefit features are attained without this means; and much experience shows that, if their cause is strong, the organized men can carry with them a large proportion of the workers and the sympathy of the public in a contest for higher wages. It never has seemed to any considerable portion of the public any more desirable that organized labor through its officers should be able to dictate to employees, than that employers should crush the workmen. It is by just this assumption that union advocates beg the question of the "union shop."
Further, the unions direct and control the employment of labor, often limit the number of apprentices in a trade, and assume to determine who shall enjoy the privilege of learning it. They limit the output, fix the maximum amount, and forbid the use of labor-saving machinery. Whenever the unions are charged with these acts, labor leaders either deny the facts or avoid giving a direct answer, but there is no doubt that the charge is true in many ways and in many cases. The requirement that each special kind of work shall be controlled by a special trade, and disputes between rival trades, for which their jealousies are responsible, give rise to great annoyance, expense, and loss to employers and to the entire public.
4. The strike is a threat and a mode of attack to enforce the demands of the union. To most newly organized laborers the union appeals mainly as an instrument for striking, for threatening the employer or for making him suffer. When a new union is formed, it is nearly always dedicated by a strike, which is the simultaneous stopping of work by a number of workers. A strike is intended to force the employer to grant the wages and conditions demanded. Its effectiveness lies in the injury which it occasions or threatens in the stopping of machinery, the ruin of material, the loss of custom, and the failure to complete contracts undertaken. Its success being dependent on the inability of the employer to fill the places of the strikers, their energies are bent on persuading or coercing other workers from taking employment. There are many ways of coercing workers without personal violence. Public opinion does much, and probably the severest of all coercive measures is the social ostracism of the worker. What may be called the endless-chain boycott is an excommunication, without measure or limit, of the non-union worker and of every one in any way befriending him or the employer. So far as in their power lies, the enraged strikers dissolve the very bonds of society, brother casts off brother, and mother disowns son. The unhappy conditions in the coal regions in 1902 rivaled the tragedies of civil war. A reasonable use of the boycott, refusal to maintain social relations with the person who offends one, is doubtless a part of personal liberty; but the boycott, as experience shows, has moral limits, and it should have strict legal limits. Its use beyond the moderate limit of the first degree of personal relations is antisocial to the degree of criminality, whether it be used as the weapon of organized workers or of organized wealth.
When peaceable means fail, often there is a recourse to violence both against the employer and his property and against the non-union men. The evils of violence in strikes often are tardily recognized by the public, whose sympathy up to a certain point is with the striker as "the under dog." It is slow to realize that strike violence is mob-law. Whenever men of one group assume the right to coerce forcibly and to wreak their hatred against one of their fellow-workers, it is a blow at political liberty. No free society can safely go the first step in permitting one group of men to usurp control over others in this way.
5. The great losses caused by strikes are the penalty of an unsolved industrial problem. The losses to workers in wages, to employers and to investors in income and property, and to the public in interruption of business, aggregate an enormous sum. It is, however, impossible to estimate it at all exactly, as the losses are in many cases indirect and intangible. The strikers are concerned not with the balance of total losses and total gains to society as a whole, but with the net gain that in the long run accrues to them. It is true that there are indirect gains not easily calculable, as the advance of wages made to avoid a strike while the lesson of the consequences is still fresh. Opinion among workingmen is not a unit as to the value of strikes. A few years ago it seemed safe to say that strikes were declining as compared with the period of the early eighties. It is probably true, as is often said, that as laborers become educated they put less faith in strikes. The epidemic of labor troubles, marking the years from 1899 to 1903, gave no evidence of a decrease in the use of strikes, yet many of these were due to the recent organization in various trades. The coal strike of 1902, though doubtless due to real grievances, was opposed by the officers of the union, an unusually capable set of men, but the more violent and discordant elements overruled the more pacific counsels. The public is perhaps as favorable as it has ever been to the cause of labor, but it appears to have less patience with strikes than it had fifteen years ago, and strikes usually fail if not backed by public opinion. The public has not as yet thought out consistent conclusions on the question of the rights of the union. It is just now much impressed with the value of arbitration. As experience destroys the unsound sentiments, and divides the wise from the unwise measures, a peaceable solution of industrial differences must and will be found.
1. Wages in particular industries often are maintained above the competitive rate. The older economic writers were somewhat unsympathetic with trade-unions, and were even inclined to deny that organization could be helpful in any way in raising wages. This view, it must now be recognized, was mistaken, and overlooked the hindrances to competition and the effective economic forces that organization can bring into play. The sympathies of most men favor the wage-earner so strongly that they hesitate to express an opinion in any way unfavorable to his efforts to raise wages. But the view of the economic theorist as to the services of the union cannot be as roseate as is that of the union labor leader. The general proposition, however, is applicable, that wherever it is possible to limit supply, prices may be raised. If men fitted to do a certain work are not permitted to do it, labor in the special industry becomes more scarce and consequently more highly valued. This involves the result that some men are forced to remain where they get lower wages than they could earn if free to act. The temporary need of the employer may enable the union to force from him a division of his profits. If the trade-union watches its opportunity and takes occasion to strike when a failure to fill orders would cause him great loss, it may compel him to pay for a time more than the normal value of the labor. It may well be doubted whether such action on the part of labor is generous, fair, honest, or in the long run wise; but that it may be immediately effective cannot be denied. By the principle of complementary goods an essential kind of labor can be given an artificially high value, if its supply can be controlled. If only the labor that is ready and willing to come in to take the place of the strikers can for a time be kept out, wages may be fixed practically according to monopoly principles, later to be discussed in connection with capitalistic organization.
2. Trade-unions can, in various but limited ways, set in motion economic forces to increase the productiveness of labor. It is difficult to take a moderate view of trade-unions; it is easier to go to one extreme or the other. In a book by Trant, reprinted from the English edition and circulated by the American Federation of Labor as representing its theory and claims, all the advances in wages that have been made are said to be due to the trade-unions. This claim is believed by many besides the members of trade-unions. The thought is sometimes expressed even by social students that but for the trade-unions wages in America would be the same as in 1850. Many well-known facts should cause such an opinion to be accepted with hesitation, to say the least. Only about one tenth of the workers in England are unionists and of the twenty-two million workers in the United States, far less than ten per cent. are organized. Can it be maintained that one tenth of the labor supply fixes the value of all? In many lines where labor is not organized, as in teaching, clerical positions, professional and domestic service, wages have risen even more than in organized trade. The evidence advanced to support the extreme claim is that wages are higher in some organized trades than in other unorganized trades requiring the same grade of laborers. Trant says that "where there are no unions wages should be lower. This is exactly the case"; and he quotes: "Wherever we find union principles ignored, a low rate of wages prevails and the reverse where organization is perfect." But he later explains in part this difference: "The union men are the best workmen and often employers pay a man more than union wages. This is not surprising as no man can be a union carpenter unless he be in good health, have worked a certain number of years at his trade, be a good workman, of steady habits and good moral character."
If this be true, it is in accordance with strict competitive principles that, as the elite of the trade, they should get higher wages than those outside. Moreover the unions exist mainly in the more populated places where cost of living, wages, and all prices range higher than in the towns. A much higher standard of work prevails in the cities, both among union and non-union men, and the old men and the inefficient drift away to the smaller towns and the places where wages are lower. Many of the differences are explicable without taking any account of the union. So far as unions tend toward intelligence, education, sobriety, efficiency, fuller and fairer competition, they are economic factors in all branches of industry, and it cannot be doubted that they do work in some measure in all these ways. So far also as they strengthen the bargaining power of the laborers, or as they can enforce a monopoly of labor in a particular trade and locality, they can secure the full competitive or even a monopoly price.
3. Wages viewed in general industry, and in the long run, are determined mainly by impersonal economic forces. That implies the converse, that they are not determined mainly by the trade-unions. This statement, in fact, is admitted in calmer moments by the extreme partisans of the unions. Even the book before quoted says somewhat vaguely that "it is an error to think that the trade-union seeks to determine the rate of wages. It cannot do that. It can do no more than affect them." Again it says: "Capital is increasing faster than population.... It seems therefore merely in obedience to natural laws that wages should rise." Men can easily see personal and immediate results. They cannot follow out the impersonal and ultimate workings of economic forces. The leaders make exaggerated claims; laborers believe them and pay their dues more readily; the public believes them and is the more inclined to pardon the excesses of so important an institution. That wages in a number of special trades are raised in a considerable degree cannot be questioned. The open or secret use of violence and other antisocial forces make much of this boasted service to some of the workers, an injury to others, and an occasion of reproach from the citizen who condemns the spirit of lawlessness thus encouraged. The chief factors tending to raise the general standard of wages are the productiveness of industry, peace, order, and security to wealth, honesty in man and master, in lawmaker and in judge, the efficiency and intelligence of the workers, and an earnest effort on their part to get the share that competition would accord them. Chiefly, though not exclusively, because of their bearing on this last factor, trade-unions have a useful, even though subordinate, part in the regulating of wages over the whole field of employment.
1. The aim of industrial effort is the increase of the quantity and quality of scarce goods; this is economic production. The thought has become familiar to the student that the supply of economic resources of whatever sort is limited, while the wants are practically unlimited. A supply of consumption goods meets a perennial stream of wants, the result being that value is attributed to things. The aim of production is to add to scarce things, to make the supply of goods as large as possible. There is occasion here to recall the thought of the two aspects of production noticed in Chapter 24. Man's part in production is passive when goods come into existence without his effort. One can imagine the indolent savage of the tropics, lying under the banana-tree, letting the fruit drop into his mouth. One can conceive of a tribe living upon manna, where every day the people awoke to discover a certain amount of food provided to each person's hand. Though no effort could increase that amount, still, if the food differed in flavor and the better qualities were rare, value would come into existence and exchange would arise. Now there is something very analogous to that in daily experience. There are some goods which effort can do little to, increase. Usually, however, there is a possibility of change and adaptation to make them better suited to needs, and there is required the use of intelligence to choose among the goods and to employ them in the best way. Further, man can intervene and direct the course of industry; he does not merely gather what is provided. It is this active intervention and effort that is here to be considered.
2. To have value, a thing must be of the right stuff, in the right form, at the right time, and at the right place to gratify wants. A distinction is sometimes made between elemental, form, time, and place value. It is a mistake to say that the value of anything is due to any one of these features, for to have value all must be united in a single thing. But the distinction is useful in emphasizing the missing characteristics, which if supplied, cause value to emerge. Ice may be considered to have form value when produced artificially by a machine, time value when stored from winter to summer, and place value when brought from the north to the south. But not less essential is the psychological condition of a hungry and thirsty population ready to consume the ice. Any act or agent is said to be productive which works in any one of these respects: puts things in better form, or in a more fitting place, or provides them at a more fitting time to serve human wants.
3. Economic production (in contrast with technical or merely formal production) is such a change in goods as is attended by an increase in value. It is often well to contrast form, appearance, imitation, with the thing itself, the reality. Men sometimes go through the forms of study when their eyes and thoughts are wandering; through the form of getting a college education when they are simply having a good time. Likewise in production there is the form and the reality. The young lady just out of boarding-school rarely produces a masterpiece with the tubes and brushes that Raphael might have used. The justification for amateur work is to be found in the doing and not in the market value of the result. Blue rosebuds, painted with loving if unskilled touch on red velvet slippers, may bloom into a romance and happiness; but to the economist this appears to be a consumption of good pigment for amusement, not a creation of value. The difference between the form and value of productive effort becomes, in the study of business organization, a most essential question. The significance of leadership and control of industry is found in this fact that economic goods may be united to produce results having either a less or a greater value than the materials that are used.
4. Individual acquisition may be contrasted with social production in cases where the individual increases his wealth at the expense of others, without adding to value. Most economic efforts increase the income of the individual and the income of society at the same time. The fruits of the field and the uses of machines are net additions to current income; they are not merely subtracted from the income of one and added to that of another. The increase of products by labor may depress somewhat the exchange value of competing labor, but the general welfare is furthered by the greater abundance. With very slight qualification it is true that in these cases the good of each is the good of all. But in some forms of human effort, social and individual interests clash. When two men bet, one gains and the other loses. The gambler's gain is a loss not only directly to his beaten opponent but indirectly to society. Certain forms of speculation approach dangerously near to the appropriation of the goods of others, and others become outright stealing, or cheating so nearly like stealing that it would be treated as a crime if discovered. But many a man prowls along the border-line of crime all his life and succeeds in making large gains without falling into the clutches of the law. Cheating that can be detected, and outright stealing, are prohibited by the law not because the burglar is an idler; he loses sleep; he has his trials too. The pursuit of burglary requires courage, effort, and ingenuity, but society does not reward these as virtues nor recognize as production the transfer of wealth from the bank-vault to the pocket of the burglar. It is the aim of social institutions to harmonize individual and social interests in the pursuit of wealth, to force men into lines of action where individual acquisition adds to the sum of social utilities. But there are many marginal cases where human justice discriminates only in a bungling way, and many controverted questions arise at the meeting-point of ethics, economics, and law.
5. In this sense, productive industries may be distinguished from unproductive ones. The old distinction between productive and unproductive labor rested on the idea that production must be embodied in material and lasting form. We have rejected this for the thought that the tests of production are to be found in feeling, not in outward things. The distinction, therefore, between productive and unproductive labor must now be of a very different kind. Viewed from the social standpoint, the efforts of men may be seen to be directed along more or less productive lines. Enterprise and effort shade off from the more to the less productive, from the extreme where the value is a net addition to wealth, through other cases where one's gain is partly at the cost of others, to fraud and crime where there is merely a transfer of ownership.
1. The various parts, materials, and agents that unite to form products are called the factors of production. In a general sense every separate thing that enters into industry is a factor; as, in agriculture, for example, the seed, plows, fields, fences, barns, cattle, labor. But usually in economic discussion, these numerous factors are grouped in large classes. The main factors are two, variously named as man and nature, or labor and material agents, or humanity and wealth. Rejecting, as we have, the old view as to the nature of consumption goods and as to the nature and possibility of the distinction between "land" and artificial capital, we class under wealth all material economic agents whatsoever. The discussion of labor and wages has broadly laid down the principles that apply to the value of human effort, but the factor of directing energy presents in modern society so many important features that it calls for special and fuller consideration.
2. The economic progress of society has been marked by decreasing dependence on the bounties and chances of nature and by increasing control of natural forces by man. Various stages of progress in human history have been recognized. First is the stage of appropriation—the stage of hunting, or of fishing, or of gathering fruits. Man in this stage is still an animal in his economic methods, not guiding and controlling nature, but merely gathering what nature chances to bring forth. The limitations to man's powers in this stage are marked. There is excess of supply and waste at one season, scarcity and great suffering at another. With such crude utilization of the bounties of nature, a vast area will support but a small population. When sheep and cattle have been domesticated, and where there is a large area for grazing, industry rises to the pastoral stage. While still dependent on nature's bounties for the feeding of his cattle, man is hourly intervening to increase, regulate, and improve the supply of food and materials. Famines are more rare, economic welfare is greater, a greater population is nourished on the same area. The agricultural stage begins whenever man plants seeds, trims, tends, and increases by his care the supply of vegetable food. This is a still greater intervention in the course of nature. Man anticipates the future, directs forces, and groups materials to his purpose of getting a regular food-supply. He is thus himself forced into settled life, begins hand-production, and makes the first steps in commerce. Then gradually comes the industrial stage, in which control over nature grows, supplies increase, machinery and motive forces are utilized, and humanity is in the full tide of industrial development. These are not sharply marked changes, but throughout all there is a growth of security, of certainty, and of productivity. With man's increasing power and foresight, chance is lessened, for directing energy takes its place.