§ 2. Increase of Capital gives Increased Employment to Labor, Without Assignable Bounds.

While, on the one hand, industry is limited by capital, so, on the other, every increase of capital gives, or is capable of giving, additional employment to industry; and this without assignable limit. I do not mean to deny that the capital, or part of it, may be so employed as not to support laborers, being fixed in machinery, buildings, improvement of land, and the like. In any large increase of capital a considerable portion will generally be thus employed, and will only co-operate with laborers, not maintain them.

[pg 076]

It will be remembered, however, that subsistence is but one part or element of capital; that instruments and materials form a large part of capital. But still the question of mere maintenance is rightfully discussed, because it is asserted to-day that, while the rich are growing richer, the poor lack even the food to keep them alive; and throughout this discussion Mr. Mill has in view the fact that laborers may exist in the community either “half fed or unemployed.”

What I do intend to assert is, that the portion which is destined to their maintenance may (supposing no alteration in anything else) be indefinitely increased, without creating an impossibility of finding the employment: in other words, that if there are human beings capable of work, and food to feed them, they may always be employed in producing something. It is very much opposed to common doctrines.106There is not an opinion more general among mankind than this, that the unproductive expenditure of the rich is necessary to the employment of the poor.

It is to be noticed that, in fact, after the arts have so far advanced in a community that mankind can obtain by their exertion more than the amount of the mere necessaries of life sufficient on the average for the subsistence of all, any further production rendered possible to the human race by new discoveries and processes is naturally unproductively consumed, and that consequently a demand for labor for unproductive consumption is essential for the employment of all existing laborers. This, however, can be done, because enough capital has been brought into existence to create the demand for the labor. Yet it is clear that it is not expenditure, but capital, by which employment is given to the poor.

Suppose that every capitalist came to be of opinion that, not being more meritorious than a well-conducted laborer, he ought not to fare better; and accordingly laid by, from conscientious motives, the surplus of his profits; unproductive expenditure is now reduced to its lowest limit: and it is asked, How is the increased capital to find employment? [pg 077] Who is to buy the goods which it will produce? There are no longer customers even for those which were produced before. The goods, therefore (it is said), will remain unsold; they will perish in the warehouses, until capital is brought down to what it was originally, or rather to as much less as the demand of the customers has lessened. But this is seeing only one half of the matter. In the case supposed, there would no longer be any demand for luxuries on the part of capitalists and land-owners. But, when these classes turn their income into capital, they do not thereby annihilate their power of consumption; they do but transfer it from themselves to the laborers to whom they give employment. Now, there are two possible suppositions in regard to the laborers: either there is, or there is not, an increase of their numbers proportional to the increase of capital. (1.) If there is, the case offers no difficulty. The production of necessaries for the new population takes the place of the production of luxuries for a portion of the old, and supplies exactly the amount of employment which has been lost. (2.) But suppose that there is no increase of population. The whole of what was previously expended in luxuries, by capitalists and landlords, is distributed among the existing laborers, in the form of additional wages. We will assume them to be already sufficiently supplied with necessaries.

What follows? That the laborers become consumers of luxuries; and the capital previously employed in the production of luxuries is still able to employ itself in the same manner; the difference being, that the luxuries are shared among the community generally, instead of being confined to a few, supposing that the power of their labor were physically sufficient to produce all this amount of indulgences for their whole number. Thus the limit of wealth is never deficiency of consumers, but of producers and productive power. Every addition to capital gives to labor either additional employment or additional remuneration.

That laborers should get more (a) by capitalists abstaining from unproductive expenditure than (b) by expenditure [pg 078] in articles unproductively consumed is a question difficult for many to comprehend, and needs all the elucidation possible. To start with, no one ever knew of a community all of whose wants were satisfied: in fact, civilization is constantly leading us into new fields of enjoyment, and results in a constant differentiation of new desires. To satisfy these wants is the spring to nearly all production and industry. There can, therefore, be no stop to production arising from lack of desire for commodities. “The limit of wealth is never deficiency of consumers,” but of productive power.

Now, in supposition (2) of the text, remember that the laborers are supposed not to be employed up to their full productive power. If all capitalists abstain from unproductive consumption, and devote that amount of wealth to production, then, since there can be no production without labor, the same number of laborers have offered to them in the aggregate a larger sum of articles for their exertions, which is equivalent to saying they receive additional wages.

But some persons want to see the process in the concrete, and the same principle may be illustrated by a practical case. It is supposed that all laborers have the necessaries of life only, but none of the comforts, decencies, and luxuries. Let A be a farmer in New York, who can also weave carpets, and B a lumberman in Maine. A begins to want a better house, and B wishes a carpet, both having food, clothing, and shelter. One of the capitalists abstaining from unproductive consumption, as above, is X, who, knowing the two desires of A and B, presents himself as a middle-man (i.e., he gives a market for both men, as is found in every center of trade, as well as in a country store), furnishing A the tools, materials, etc., and giving him the promise of lumber if he will create the carpet, and promising B the carpet if he will likewise produce the additional lumber. To be more matter of fact, X buys the carpet of A, and sells it to B for the lumber. Thus two new articles have been created, and for their exertions A has received additional wages (either in the form of lumber, or of the money paid him for the carpet), and B has received additional wages (either in the form of a carpet, or the money paid him by X for the lumber). If A and B are regarded as typifying all the laborers, and X all the above capitalists, in the multiplicity of actual exchanges, it will be seen that A and B are creating new articles to satisfy their own demand, instead of meeting the demands of X. If their primary wants are already supplied, then they take their additional wages in the form of comforts and decencies. When Class X forego their consumption, but add that amount to capital, they do not give up their title to that capital, but they transfer the use of [pg 079] it, or their consuming power, to others for the time being. This question will be more fully discussed in § 6.