DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?
When we hear our beardless scribblers, romancers, reformers, our
perfumed magazine writers, stuffed with ices and champagne, as they
carefully place in their portfolios the sentimental scissorings which
fill the current literature of the day, or cause to be decorated with
gilded ornaments their tirades against the egotism and the
individualism of the age; when we hear them declaiming against social
abuses, and groaning over deficient wages and needy families; when we
see them raising their eyes to heaven and weeping over the
wretchedness of the laboring classes, while they never visit this
wretchedness unless it be to draw lucrative sketches of its scenes of
misery, we are tempted to say to them: The sight of you is enough to
make me sicken of attempting to teach the truth.
Affectation! Affectation! It is the nauseating disease of the day! If
a thinking man, a sincere philanthropist, takes into consideration the
condition of the working classes and endeavors to lay bare their
necessities, scarcely has his work made an impression before it is
greedily seized upon by the crowd of reformers, who turn, twist,
examine, quote, exaggerate it, until it becomes ridiculous; and then,
as sole compensation, you are overwhelmed with such big words as:
Organization, Association; you are flattered and fawned upon until
you become ashamed of publicly defending the cause of the working man;
for how can it be possible to introduce sensible ideas in the midst of
these sickening affectations?
But we must put aside this cowardly indifference, which the
affectation that provokes it is not enough to justify.
Working men, your situation is singular! You are robbed, as I will
presently prove to you. But no: I retract the word; we must avoid an
expression which is violent; perhaps, indeed, incorrect; inasmuch as
this spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is
practised, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and
with the consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you
are deprived of the just remuneration of your labor, while no one
thinks of causing _justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could be
consoled by the noisy appeals of your champions to philanthropy, to
powerless charity, to degrading almsgiving, or if the high-sounding
words of Voice of the People, Rights of Labor, &c., would relieve
you--these indeed you can have in abundance. But _justice_, simple
_justice_--this nobody thinks of rendering you. For would it not be
_just_ that after a long day's labor, when you have received your
wages, you should be permitted to exchange them for the largest
possible sum of comforts you can obtain voluntarily from any man upon
the face of the earth?
I too, perhaps, may some day speak to you of the Voice of the People,
the Rights of Labor, &c., and may perhaps be able to show you what you
have to expect from the chimeras by which you allow yourselves to be
led astray.
In the meantime let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you by
the legislative limitation of the number of persons from whom you are
allowed to buy those things which you need; as iron, coal, cotton and
woollen cloths, &c.; thus artificially fixing (so to express myself)
the price which these articles must bear.
Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus
injures you, proportionably raises the rate of wages?
On what does the rate of wages depend?
One of your own class has energetically said: "When two workmen run
after a boss, wages fall; when two bosses run after a workman, wages
rise."
Allow me, in similar laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific,
though perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends
upon the proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand."
On what depends the _demand_ for labor?
On the quantity of disposable capital seeking investment. And the law
which says, "Such or such an article shall be limited to home
production and no longer imported from foreign countries," can it in
any degree increase this capital? Not in the least. This law may
withdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another; but cannot
increase it one penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for labor.
While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we
answer, whence comes the capital with which it is founded and
maintained? Has it fallen from the moon? or rather is it not drawn
either from agriculture, or stock-breeding, or commerce? We here see
why, since the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in
our mines and our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer vessels in
our ports, fewer graziers and fewer laborers in our fields and upon
our hill-sides.
I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer
illustrating my thought by an example.
A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of $10,000. He
divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following
changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As
he needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain,
meat, and dairy produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought
iron, coal, cloths, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly
distributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workingmen of the
neighborhood. This capital was, from his sales, again returned to him,
and even increased from year to year. Our countryman, being fully
convinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulate
among the working classes this annual increase, which he devoted to
the inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements in his farming
utensils and his buildings. He deposited some sums in reserve in the
hands of a neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave these
idle in his strong-box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so that
the whole came to be usefully employed in the payment of wages.
The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance,
said to himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all his
life, allowed himself to be duped. He bought iron, and thus paid
_tribute_ to England, while our own land could, by an effort, be made
to produce iron as well as England. He bought coal, cloths, and
oranges, thus paying _tribute_ to New Brunswick, France, and Sicily,
very unnecessarily; for coal may be found, doeskins may be made, and
oranges may be forced to grow, within our own territory. He paid
tribute to the foreign miner and the weaver; our own servants could
very well mine our iron and get up native doeskins almost as good as
the French article. He did all he could to ruin himself, and gave to
strangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his own
household."
Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the
routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he
dug for coal; on another he erected a cloth factory; on a third he put
a hot-house and cultivated the orange; he devoted the fourth to vines,
the fifth to wheat, &c., &c. Thus he succeeded in rendering himself
_independent_, and furnished all his family supplies from his own
farm. He no longer received anything from the general circulation;
neither, it is true, did he cast anything into it. Was he the richer
for this course? No; for his mine did not yield coal as cheaply as he
could buy it in the market, nor was the climate favorable to the
orange. In short, the family supply of these articles was very
inferior to what it had been during the time when the father had
obtained them and others by exchange of produce.
With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than
formerly. THERE WERE, TO BE SURE, FIVE TIMES AS MANY FIELDS TO
CULTIVATE, BUT THEY WERE FIVE TIMES SMALLER. If coal was mined, there
was also less wheat; and because there were no more oranges bought,
neither was there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not
spend in wages more than his capital, and his capital, instead of
increasing, was now constantly diminishing. A great part of it was
necessarily devoted to numerous buildings and utensils, indispensable
to a person who determines to undertake everything. In short, the
supply of labor continued the same, but the means of paying became
less.
The result is precisely similar when a nation isolates itself by the
prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly
multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their
number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same
skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed
capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to
say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages.
What remains, ramifies itself in vain; the quantity cannot be
augmented. It is like the water of a deep pond, which, distributed
among a multitude of small reservoirs, appears to be more abundant,
because it covers a greater quantity of soil, and presents a larger
surface to the sun, while we hardly perceive that, precisely on this
account, it absorbs, evaporates, and loses itself the quicker.
Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production,
always the less great in proportion as obstacles are numerous. There
can be no doubt that international barriers, by forcing capital and
labor to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate,
must cause the general production to be less, or, in other words,
diminish the portion of comforts which would thence result to mankind.
If, then, there be a general diminution of comforts, how, working men,
can it be possible that _your_ portion should be increased? Under such
a supposition it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those
who made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject
themselves to their own proportion of the general diminution, but
taking the whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a
further loss in order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is
this possible? It is, indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity; and
if you act wisely you will reject it.