128
within suitable hounds. By what means are both attainedwithout causing therewith an economical disadvantage, nay, infact, helping onward economical progress ?
We saw that the result of technical progress is a vast, increase inproduction. Therewith a corresponding lowering of piece-wagesis made possible. But the piece-wages are not reduced in thesame proportion that the production increases, or the operativewould remain in the same position. But the reduction in piece-wages is somewhat less, so that the weekly earnings increase. Afour-loom weaver receives per loom considerably less than a one-loom weaver ; but lie receives per loom more than a quarter of theearnings of the latter. He must receive more; because otherwisehis standard of living could not be higher than that of the one-loom weaver. With such a standard of living the four-loomweaver himself would not be possible.
A similar state of affairs is seen regarding the hours of labour.By the quicker speed, the lengthening of the niachines, etc., alarger production per day is achieved ; a larger production which,on the one hand, allows a curtailment of the hours of labour,without which, on the other hand, it would not be possible, sincethe labour capacity of the operative is fettered to the fixed limitsof organism. By producing in a shorter time just as much as,or more than, was produced formerly in a longer time, an arrayof fixed charges is cut down. “ It is cheaper to exhaust labour-power in 9 than in 11 hours,” said an intelligent employer to 1 me.
After having already written down the above observations, Ifind to my joy a thorough similar grasp of the question examinedin the latest work of Marshall: “Elements of Economics” (London, 1892). Marshall also accepts the fact that by machinery a. reversedevelopment results in regard to division of labour. “Machineryweakens the boundaries between the single branches of trade”(28). Machinery tends towards a. complete automatic dischargingof the;work to be done, to the condition which limits the energy ofmen to the feeding with raw material, taking away the producedarticles, and minding the machine. “ That portion of the labourwhich repeats itself is done by the machine, which becomes more
28. From the above-mentioned work. p. 163. But when the action hasbeen reduced to routine it has nearly arrived at the stage at which it can hetaken over by machinery. . . . This machinery constantly supplants that
purely manual skill, the attainment of which was, even up to A. Smith’s time,(lie chief advantage of division of labour.