The least efficient men in any trade always suffer most. The change crushes hardest the man at the margin of employment. The more skilled workman can hasten his pace and still earn a living wage in competition with a machine, while the less skilled can but drop out entirely, innocent victims of an economic change, sacrifices to the cause of industrial progress. Happily such pathetic incidents are relatively not numerous. Most machinery is introduced in commercial centers, and gradually spreads to other factories in such a way that most men can adapt themselves to the change. The effect of machinery must not be judged by the extreme cases. It was found that there were more hand-looms in use in England in 1850 than fifty years before, though in the meantime power-looms had displaced the hand-looms in all the great factories. [Sidenote: Error of the "lump of labor" notion] 2. _After time for adjustment, the total sum of employment is as great as before, but the labor is differently distributed._ The "lump of labor" idea, as it is called, is widely held, especially among workingmen. The notion is that there is exactly so much labor predetermined to be done; therefore, if machines are introduced, there is that much less for men to do. The logical conclusion easily drawn is that every machine reduces wages. Few, however, would go on to the further conclusion that in the aggregate the existing machinery, like an enormous vampire, is sucking the life-blood of the working-people,--though traces of such a notion frequently appear. [Sidenote: Effect of machinery varies in different industries]