FOOTNOTES
[1] It is also true that an entire variety of gems or other things of this genus might, by mere cheapness, be branded as too common to be used by the very wealthy, except for new and inferior modes of adornment.
[2] It is worth noticing (1) that uniformly reducing the cost of everything would cause comparative changes in consumption. Anything which should take away a quarter of the cost of every article in the entire list of social products would increase the consumption of some articles more than it would increase that of others. There is an extremely theoretical case in which there might even be a lessening of the effectual demand for a few things because a uniform reduction of twenty-five per cent would cause other things to be extensively substituted for them. This thinkable possibility is not practically important.
A detailed study would show (2) that a reduction in the cost of any single article in the entire list of social products causes an increase in the consumption of commodities in general. As an isolated man who has had to work hard for mere food and content himself with a few comforts and no luxuries will indulge in luxuries when food production becomes much easier, so society as an organic whole will increase its indulgences all along the line whenever the work of getting any one thing is reduced and some working time is thus liberated.
CHAPTER XVII
FURTHER INFLUENCES WHICH REDUCE THE HARDSHIPS ENTAILED BY DYNAMIC CHANGES
In the absence of an unusually great increase in the consumption of an article the improvement which reduces the cost of it tends to displace labor. The first thing that will occur to any one who looks for influences which mitigate this evil is the fact that economical changes are going on at nearly all points in the system, and that this cancels out most of the displacing influence. If something sends men from the group A to groups B and C, while something else sends them from the group B to groups A and C, and still another influence impels men from C to A and B, there is likely to be very little actual moving. A question will in such a case arise as to whether the three movements may not expel labor from all the groups and remand them to a state of idleness. History is clear in the answer it gives to this question; such a result has not occurred, and at the end of a century of brilliant mechanical progress the amount of enforced idleness is not greater than it was at the outset. It remains to show that economic law precludes a universal displacement and insures laborers for all time against being at the mercy of an industrial system which has nowhere any need of their services. Productive devices widely introduced mean great and general gains and comparatively little cost. They mean what on their face they ought to mean, more comforts and less toil for everybody. Before studying this influence—the reciprocal action of improvements scattered through the general economic system—we have to determine the action of one or two other influences which also lessen the disturbances which progress causes.
One can see that the quick adoption of an economical device in every shop of a subgroup, at a time when all other industries are in a stationary state, would usually expel some labor from that one. If consumers should, on a large scale, substitute the product of this subgroup for that of others, it might save the situation; but the general fact is that the consumption of the cheapened product must increase in a ratio that is greater than the ratio representing the saving of labor used in making it, in order to prevent displacement of labor. If we get on with two thirds of the labor which the making of the commodity out of raw materials formerly required, we do not save two thirds of the total expense of making the finished article; and yet to retain all the labor that is now in the business we must sell one and a half times the former number of the goods produced.[1]