The effects of the like one-sided discipline are similarly visible in the highly irregular, conventionally indefensible attitude of the industrial classes in the current labor and wage disputes, not of an avowedly socialistic aim. So also as regards the departure from the ancient norm in such non-economic, or secondarily economic matters as the family relation and responsibility, where the disintegration of conventionalities in the industrial towns is said to threaten the foundations of domestic life and morality; and again as regards the growing inability of men trained to materialistic, industrial habits of thought to appreciate, or even to apprehend, the meaning of religious appeals and consolations that proceed on the old-fashioned conventional or metaphysical grounds of validity. But these and other like directions in which the cultural effects of the modern specialisation of occupations, whether in industry or in business, may be traceable can not be followed up here. FOOTNOTES: [1] Reprinted by permission from _Publications of the American Economic Association_, series 3, Vol. II. [2] Some late writers, as, _e.g._, J. B. Clark, apparently must be held to conceive the equivalence in terms of productive force rather than of serviceability; or, perhaps, in terms of serviceability on one side of the equation and productive force on the other. [3] J. B. Clark, _The Distribution of Wealth_, p. 20. [4] The undertaker gets an income; therefore he must produce goods. But human activity directed to the production of goods is labor; therefore the undertaker is a particular kind of laborer. There is, of course, some dissent from this position. [5] The change which has supervened as regards the habitual resort to a natural law of equivalence is in large part a change with respect to the degree of immediacy and "reality" imputed to this law, and to a still greater extent a change in the degree of overtness with which it is avowed. [6] See, _e.g._, a paper by H. C. Emery in the _Papers and Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting_ of the American Economic Association, on "The Place of the Speculator in the Theory of Distribution," and more particularly the discussion following the paper. [7] _Cf. e.g._, Marx, _Capital_, especially bk. I, ch. IV.