now rises to 3 shillings 715 d. without any variation in the price of labour. The same result might follow if, instead of the extensive amount of labour, its intensive amount increased,[1] The rise of the nominal daily or weekly wages may therefore be accompanied by a price of labour that remains stationary or falls. The same holds as to the income of the labourer’s family, as soon as the quantity of labour expended by the head of the family is increased by the labour of the members of his family. There are, therefore, methods of lowering the price of labour independent of the reduction of the nominal daily or weekly wages.[2]
As a general law it follows that, given the amount of daily, weekly labour, &c., the daily or weekly wages depend on the price of labour which, itself varies either with the value of labour-power, or with the difference between its price and its value, Given, on the other hand, the price of labour, the daily or weekly wages depend on the quantity of the daily or weekly labour.
The unit measure for time-wages, the price of the working-hour, is the quotient of the value of a day’s labour-power, divided by the number of hours of the average working-day. Let the latter be 12 hours, and the daily value of labour-power 3 shillings, the value of the product of 6 hours of labour. Under these circumstances the price of a working-hour is 3d,
- ↑ The wages of labour depend upon the price of labour and the quantity of labour performed.… An increase in the wages of labour does not necessarily imply an enhancement of the price of labour. From fuller employment, and greater exertions, the wages of labour may be considerably increased, while the price of labour may continue the same.” West, l. c. pp. 67, 68, 112. The main question: “How is the price of labour determined?” West, however, dismisses with mere banalities.
- ↑ This is perceived by the fanatical representative of the industrial bourgeoisie of the 18th century, the author of the “Essay on Trade and Commeree” often quoted by us, although he puts the matter in a confused way: “It is the quantity of lahour and not the price of it (he means by this the nominal daily or weekly wages) that is determined by the price of provisions and other necessaries: reduce the price of necessaries very low, and of course you reduce the quantity of labour in proportion. Master manufacturers know that there are various ways of raising and felling the price of labour, besides that of altering its nominal amount.” (l. c. pp. 48, 61.) In his “Three Lectures on the rate of Wages,’’ London, 1830, in which N. W. Senior uses West's work without mentioning it, he says: “The labourer is principally interested in the amount of wages,” (p. 14), that is to say the labourer is principally interested in what he receives, the nominal sum of his wages, not in that which he gives, the amount of labour!
