It is singular that in the analysis of the division of labour, given by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations,” the most efficient cause of its advantage is entirely omitted. The three causes assigned in that work are—
- 1st. The increase of dexterity in every particular workman.
- 2nd. The saving of time lost in passing from one species of work to another.
- 3rd. The invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and enable one man to do the work of many.
These are undoubtedly true causes, but the most important cause is entirely omitted.
The most effective cause of the cheapness produced by the division of labour is this—
By dividing the work to be executed into different processes, each requiring different degrees of skill, or of force, the master manufacturer can purchase exactly that precise quantity of both which is necessary for each process. Whereas if the whole work were executed by one workman, that person must possess sufficient skill to perform the most difficult, and sufficient strength to execute the most laborious, of those operations into which the art is divided.
Needle-making is perhaps the best illustration of the overpowering effect of this cause. The operatives in this {437} manufacture consist of children, women, and men, earning wages varying from three or four shillings up to five pounds per week. Those who point the needles gain about two pounds. The man who hardens and tempers the needles earns from five to six pounds per week. It ought also to be observed that one man is sufficient to temper the needles for a large factory; consequently the time spent on each needle by the most expensive operative is excessively small.
But if a manufacturer insist on employing one man to make the whole needle, he must pay at the rate of five pounds a week for every portion of the labour bestowed upon it.[61]
[61] See “Economy of Manufactures.”
Cost of any Article.
Besides the usual elements which contribute to constitute the price of any thing, there exists another which varies greatly in different articles. It is this—