MACHINERY AND LABOR*

HENRY WHITE

This subject is one which involves the whole industrial problem. It is the complexity of conditions, due to the introduction of machinery, which has caused the wide differences of opinion upon the question of the division of wealth. Under the simpler methods of industry the manner in which the proceeds of labor were distributed was readily understood; to-day, however, the system is so highly organized that there is much confusion as to its operations. The perplexity is so great that there are many who see in labor-saving inventions some malign purpose, and others who, discerning that any means which enhances the productiveness of labor must benefit mankind, do not comprehend the manner by which that result is effected. It is the habit

of judging the operations of so complex a system by the effect upon certain interests, instead of viewing it as a whole, which accounts for the common misconceptions regarding the service rendered by machinery to society.

If people were to consider how meagre would be the rewards of toil without machinery, how costly the necessaries of life, its value would soon become appa

sumer.

The confusion is increased by the dual relations which a person occupies as a producer and as a conAs a consumer, he benefits almost at once by every saving in effort, while as a producer his means of a livelihood may, in consequence, be threatened. The laborers thrown out of work by a machine, or even the merchant forced out of business through some combination, cannot be expected to appreciate the beneficence *Address before the American Society of Political and Social Science, at Philadelphia, April 4, 1902.

of such economy. In both cases their horizon is limited to their own means of a livelihood.

When a person finds his occupation suddenly gone, it outweighs all other considerations and, unmindful of the benfits he may have derived from similar economies in other trades, inventions to him seem a curse. The rewards of the particular invention which distresses him go to the body of consumers and he only shares. indirectly as one of them. In the case of the wage worker, the gain is not evident, as it is with the manufacturer who first utilizes an invention.

It is regrettable that even the temporary disadvantages of industrial progress should fall heavily upon some to the advantage of others, but it is as unavoidable as friction is to motion. The suffering can be mitigated only in proportion as our knowledge of the methods of industry increases, by recognizing the inevitableness of the changes and preparing to meet them.

Economic laws, like the laws of nature, admit of no exceptions. Were discrimination possible, the consequences would make the present hardships seem nothing in comparison; in fact, society would quickly disintegrate and revert to its primitive state. If society had to wait for the sanction of every person before a forward step could be taken, it would never start. In the process of adjustment and readjustment, which progress implies, it is unavoidable that some have to be forced out of settled grooves and made to fit into new ones. It is this adaptability to change which characterizes modern enterprise-this willingness to suffer immediate discomforts for the achievement of larger ends.

The confusion concerning the service rendered by machinery is not strange, considering the absurd notions which are rife concerning the elementary principles of political economy. No distinction is usually made in the popular mind between useful and useless labor.

There is supposed to be only a given amount of work to be done, and hence the inference that the less each one does the more jobs there will be to go around. If wealth be wasted or destroyed, it will in some mysterious manner be replaced. The destruction of property by fire or flood is regarded with complacency by those not directly affected, upon the supposition that more work is thereby provided, without taking into account that the wealth required to replace it must be diverted from some productive use. The spending or circulating of money is equivalent to creating wealth. Luxury is looked upon with more favor than frugality, and it is even thought that gambling benefits a community as much as industry, because the fortunate ones spend freely, and the misery which it begets is lost sight of in contemplation of the profits of a few. With such erroneous ideas, entertained even by educated people, it is apparent why the complex operations of our industrial system are so slightly understood. The expansion of industry which follows labor-saving devices, the creation of new industries and the consequent replacing of those displaced is unintelligible to all save the few who comprehend economic principles.

In addition to the popular misconception of the subject, there are historic causes which have created this antipathy to machinery. During the transition from the domestic to the factory system in England, machinery became a club to subjugate the laborer. Untutored, unorganized, without any resisting power, the former in dependent artisan, now a factory hand, was placed in brutal competition with his fellows, and every invention only added to his helplessness. The plight of the English laborers at that time abundantly shows that there are circumstances in which the wealth of a nation may increase tremendously, the productive power of labor multiply many fold, while the workers, on the other

hand, become impoverished and brutalized.

Mill was

of the opinion that machinery had not benefited the working class, but, happily, since the time in which he wrote education and organization, two indispensable factors in their advancement, have come to their aid. An upward trend has, in consequence, taken place, and the stimulus which it has given will make a relapse, owing to the advance in sanitary science, as impossible as another visitation of a plague. Where the workers have succeeded in acquiring some independence in raising their standard of living, machinery, despite the drawbacks described, has undoubtedly become a potent factor in the elevation of their class.

Under a collective system, the immediate benefits. which would be derived by each individual through labor saving inventions is its chief merit, but to compare the good features of an imaginary social system with the disadvantages of the existing one is an easy task. It can, however, be shown that this desired co-operative principle actually obtains at the present time in a rough way by the distribution of the benefits of inventions throughout society, and that there are possibilities for its more perfect application.

As to the worker's share in production, Karl Marx, in his incisive analysis, comes to the conclusion that the value of commodities is based upon the labor cost plus the profits of the capitalist. In that he is in accord with the authorities upon social science since Adam Smith. He deduces from that that labor alone represents the actual wealth which is exploited for profit by the capitalist and that the very capital invested was previously appropriated from the laborer. Granting this conclusion, Marx should have made allowance for the competition between capitalists by which the price of commodities is kept within certain limits and the benefits of cheaper production are given

to the consumer. In the cases Marx deals with, cheaper production unfortunately did not only mean more economical methods, but lower wages and long hours and the sacrifice of the worker, while the consumer represented some one else than the operative, who barely subsisted on his pittance. Without the ability to purchase the goods he produced, England had to dispose of in foreign markets that which should have been consumed at home, always the best market. Her chief dependence being upon outside markets, everything had to be subordinated to cheaper production, no matter how obtained.

Concerning the attitude of trades unions upon the question of machinery, the membership being composed of men with the usual abilities, their views do not materially differ from others. Having, however, the benefit of an education derived from a close study of economic problems and an experience which has helped them to form broader opinions, they are gradually reconciling themselves to machinery; as, for example, the action taken at the late convention of the American Federation of Labor held at Scranton. In a resolution introduced by the delegates of the Cigar Makers' International Union requesting that a certain firm be declared unfair, there was reference to a cigar-making machine used in the shop of this employer. Although the machine was mentioned as an evidence only of the inferiority of the product of the concern, a vigorous objection was at once raised by the delegates against any mention of the use of machinery by the firm. In the debate which followed it was argued that the convention could not afford to go on record as against labor-saving devices, and that any attempt to oppose them would prove futile. The objectionable words were stricken out by a decisive vote. As to what action the convention would have taken had the delegates thought