Labour and the Popular WelfareMallock, W. H. (William Hurrell)
General
Labour and the Popular Welfare
Mallock, W. H. (William Hurrell)
Labor; Labor movement; Socialism; Working class
◆¹ Perhaps then it will be said that they are due to differences of
soil and climate. But again, that will not explain the differences, at
various dates, between the incomes of the same countries; and though
it may explain a little, it will not explain much, of the differences
at the same date between the incomes of different countries. The soil
and climate, for instance, of the United Kingdom, are not in themselves
more suited for agriculture than the soil and climate of France and
Belgium; and yet for each individual actually engaged in agriculture,
this country produces in value twenty-five per cent more than France,
and forty per cent more than Belgium. I may add that it produces
forty-six per cent more than Germany, sixty-six per cent more than
Austria, and sixty per cent more than Italy.[21]
[Sidenote ◆1 Nor of hours of labour,]
◆¹ Perhaps then a third explanation will be suggested. These
differences will be said to be due to differences in the hours of
labour. But a moment’s consideration will show that that has nothing to
do with the problem; for when a million people in this country produced
half what they produce to-day, they had fewer holidays, and they worked
longer hours. Now that they have doubled the annual produce, they take
practically four weeks less in producing it.[22] Again, the hours of
labour for the manufacturing classes are in Switzerland twenty-six
per cent longer at the present time than in this country; and yet
the annual product, in proportion to the number of operatives, is
twenty-eight per cent less.[23]
Agriculture gives us examples of the same discrepancy between the
labour expended and the value of the result obtained. In France, the
agricultural population is three times what it is in this country, but
the value of the agricultural produce is not so much as double.[24]
[Sidenote ◆1 But are causes of some other kind which lie below the
surface,]
Plainly, therefore, the growth of a nation’s income, under modern
conditions, does not depend on an increased expenditure of labour.
There might, indeed, seem some ground for leaping to the contrary
conclusion—that it grows in proportion as the hours of labour
are limited: but whatever incidental truth there may be in that
contention, it does not explain the main facts we are dealing with; for
some of the most rapid changes in the incomes of nations we find have
occurred during periods when the hours of labour remained unaltered;
and we find at the present moment that countries in which the hours of
labour are the same, differ even more, in point of income, from one
another than they differ from countries in which the hours of labour
are different. ◆¹ Whatever, therefore, the causes of such differences
may be, they are not simple and superficial causes like these.
[Sidenote ◆1 And which requires to be carefully searched for.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account