So far in the discussion of modern capitalistic production and of the
various labor problems to which it has given rise we have not treated
in detail the question of machinery and its effects on labor. We
cannot, however, leave this subject without taking up this phase of it
with considerable care. The advantages of machinery have been more
often emphasized than the evils, so that we may profitably begin with
the darker side of the picture. President Hadley[28] enumerates three
evils which are charged against machinery, as now managed and
operated: “1. That it displaces a large amount of human labor, thus
taking income away from employes and giving it to employers. 2. That
when it does not actually drive human labor out of use, it employs it
in circumstances unfavorable to efficiency, health, and morals. 3.
That under the best conditions it deprives the workman of
independence, making him a specialized machine instead of a
broad-minded man.” We cannot do better than take up these points one
by one.
In answer to the first charge President Hadley flatly denies that
machinery has displaced labor, but insists that “there has been a most
conspicuous increase of employment in those lines where improvements
in machinery have been greatest,” giving the expansion of railroads as
an illustration. But it is not possible to generalize from this case
without further analysis. The immediate effect of improved machinery,
especially if suddenly introduced, is practically always to throw men
out of employment. The extent to which this will occur depends on the
suddenness and extensiveness of the change, but fortunately, as
Professor Nicholson points out, new inventions seldom come suddenly or
are introduced all at once on an extensive scale. It took almost a
generation, for example, for American machine methods to displace 102
Swiss hand labor in the making of watches. But when such a change does
occur it hits hardest the least efficient and older men, those just on
the margin of employment, for a man past middle life can rarely learn
a new trade. The effect of displacement in causing suffering will also
depend somewhat upon the mobility of labor, both the knowledge of new
opportunities and the capital to make possible a change of location or
industry, and improvements in the means of transportation. It can
easily be shown that as a general principle the lump-of-labor theory
is erroneous, namely, that there is just so much work to be done and
that if machinery is introduced there will be less work for men to do.
But there is this element of truth in it, that the question whether
men will be reabsorbed in the same industry depends upon the fact as
to whether the market for the goods produced by the new machine can be
expanded. If the demand is elastic, that is, can be largely extended
because of the fall in price brought about by the cheaper production,
as in the case of cotton goods, then the displaced laborers will
probably be re-employed to produce an enlarged supply. If, however,
the demand is inelastic, that is, will not be expanded by reason of a
fall in price, as in the case of salt or coffins, then the displaced
labor will not be reabsorbed in the same industry but must look
elsewhere for employment.
The elaborate investigation of the Department of Labor in 1898
regarding the relative merits of hand and machine labor shows clearly
the effect on the displacement of labor by the introduction of
machinery. A few cases will serve as illustrations (see table on next
page).
These cases, chosen at random, all show an increase in the number of
different men employed, and an immense saving in time and in labor
cost. Nothing is indicated however as to the total amount of
employment. Optimistic writers like Carroll D. Wright claim that if