Now suppose, that with the same labour and fixed capital, more fish could be produced, but no more gold or game, the relative value of fish would fall in comparison with gold or game. If, instead of twenty salmon, twenty-five were the produce of one day's labour, the price of a salmon would be sixteen shillings instead of a pound, and two salmon and a half, instead of two salmon, would be given in exchange for one deer, but the price of deer would continue at 2l. as before. In the same manner, if fewer fish could be obtained with the same capital and labour, fish would rise in comparative value. Fish then would rise or fall in exchangeable value, only because more or less labour was required to obtain a given quantity; and it never could rise or fall beyond the proportion of the increased or diminished quantity of labour required.
If we had then an invariable standard, by which we could measure the variation in other commodities, we should find that the utmost limit to which they could permanently rise, was proportioned to the additional quantity of labour required for their production; and that unless more labour were required for their production, they could not rise in any degree whatever. A rise of wages would not raise them in money value, nor relatively to any other commodities, the production of which required no additional quantity of labour, which employed the same proportion of fixed and circulating capital, and fixed capital of the same durability. If more or less labour were required in the production of the other commodity, we have already stated that this will immediately occasion an alteration in its relative value, but such alteration is owing to the altered quantity of requisite labour, and not to the rise of wages.
If the fixed and circulating capitals were in different proportions, or if the fixed capital were of different durability, then the relative value of the commodities produced, would be altered in consequence of a rise of wages.
First, when the fixed and circulating capitals were in different proportions, suppose that instead of 100l. fixed capital and 100l. circulating capital, the hunter should employ 150l. fixed capital and 50l. circulating capital, and that the fisherman should on the contrary employ only 50l. fixed capital and 150l. circulating capital.
| If profits be 10 per cent., the hunter mustsell his goods for 79l. 8s. For, | |
To replace his circulating capitalof 50l. with a profit of 10 percent. would require a value of | 55l. |
To replace his fixed capital with10 per cent. profit, the presentvalue of an annuity for ten yearsof 24.4l. at 10 per cent. being150l. | 24.4l. |
| —— | |
| 79.4l. | |
| If profits be 10 per cent., the fishermanmust sell his goods for 173l. 2s. 7d. | |
To replace his circulating capitalof 150l. with a profit of 10 percent. would require a value of | 165l. |
To replace his fixed capital with10 per cent. profit, one-third ofthe hunter' | 8.13 |
| ——— | |
| 173.13l. | |
Now if wages rise, although neither of these commodities should require more labour for their production, yet their relative value will be altered. Suppose wages to rise 6 per cent., the hunter would not require more than an increase of 3l. to his capital, to employ the same number of men, and obtain the same quantity of game; the fisherman would require three times that sum, or 9l. The profits of stock would fall to 4 per cent., the hunter would be obliged to sell his game for 73l. 12s. 2d.
Thus we see, that with every rise of wages, in proportion as the capital employed in any occupation consists of circulating capital, its produce will be of greater relative value than the goods produced in another occupation, where a less proportion of circulating, and a greater proportion of fixed capital are employed.