(3.iii.2) Of these two species of labour, two things are to be observed : First, that they are notalways paid according to the same rate; that is, the payment of the one does not rise when that ofthe other rises, or fall when that of the other falls : And, secondly, that they do not alwayscontribute to the production of all commodities in equal proportions.
(3.iii.3) If there were any two species of labour, the wages of which did not rise and fall inthe same proportion, and which, contributing to the production of all commodities, did notcontribute to them all in equal degrees, this circumstance, of their not contributing in equaldegrees, would create a difference in exchangeable values, as often as any fluctuation took placein the rate of wages.
(3.iii.4) If all commodities were produced by a portion of skilled, and a portion of unskilledlabour, but the ratio which these portions bore to one another were different in differentcommodities; and if, as often as the wages of skilled labour rose, the wages of unskilled labourrose twice as much; it is very obvious, that, upon a rise of wages, those commodities, to theproduction of which a greater proportion of unskilled labour was applied, would rise in value ascompared with those to which a less proportion was applied. It is also obvious, that, though thisdifference in the ratios according to which the wages of the two kinds of labour had altered, andin the proportions in which they were applied to the production of different commodities, would,upon a rise or fall in wages, alter the relative value of the commodities, it would do so, withoutin the least degree affecting the truth of the proposition, that quantity of labour determinedexchangeable values.
(3.iii.5) The case is precisely the same when we consider that it is the two species of labour,called primary and secondary, which are applied in different proportions.
(3.iii.6) Three cases will conveniently exemplify the different degrees in which labour andcapital respectively contribute to production. These are the two extreme cases, and the medium.
The first is that of commodities which are produced by immediate labour alone without capital;the second, that of commodities produced, one half by capital, one half by immediate labour;the third, that of commodities produced by capital alone without immediate labour. There areperhaps no actual cases which perfectly coincide with either of the extremes. There are,however, cases which approximate to both; and when the most ****** are illustrated asexamples, allowance can easily and correctly be made for the differences of the rest.
(3.iii.7) If two species of labour are employed in the production of commodities; and if,when the payment of the one species of labour rises, that of the other falls; a commodity, in theproduction of which a greater proportion of the first species of labour is employed, will, upon arise in the payment of that species of labour, rise in exchangeable value, as compared with acommodity in which less is employed. The degree however, in which it will rise, will dependupon two circumstances: first, upon the degree in which the payment of the one species of labourfalls when the other rises; and, secondly, upon the degree in which the proportion of the labourof the first kind, employed in its production, exceeds the proportion of it which is employed inthe production of the other commodity.
(3.iii.8) The first question then, is, in what degree, when wages rise, do profits fall? And thisis the only general question; for the degree in which the two species of labour combine in theproduction of different commodities, depends upon the circumstances of each particular case.
(3.iii.9) If all commodities corresponded with the first of the cases, assumed above asexamples, and which we may, for the sake of abbreviation, designate, as No. 1, No. 2, No. 3; in otherwords, if all commodities were produced wholly by labour, capital being solely employed in thepayment of wages; in that case, just as much as wages of labour rose, profits of stock would fall.
(3.iii.10) Suppose a capital of 1000 l. to be thus employed, and profits to be 10 per cent., thevalue of the commodity would be 1100 l., for that would replace the capital with its profits. Thecommodity may be regarded as consisting of 1100 parts, of which 1000 would belong to thelabourers, and 100 to the capitalist. Let wages, upon this, be supposed to rise 5 per cent.; in thatcase, it is evident, that instead of 100 parts of the 1100, the capitalist would receive only 50; hisprofits, therefore, instead of 10 would be only 5 per cent. Instead of 1000 l. He would have topay 1050 l. in wages. The commodity would not rise in value to indemnify him, because we havesupposed that all commodities are in the same situation; it would, therefore, be of the value of1100 l., as before, of which 50 l. alone would remain for himself.
(3.iii.11) If all commodities corresponded with the case No. 2, profits would fall only half asmuch as wages rose. If we suppose that 1000 l. were paid in wages, and 1000 l. employed infixed capital; that profits, as before, were 10 per cent., and this the whole expenditure; the valueof the commodity would be 1200 l. because that is the sum which would replace the capitalexpended and pay the profits of the whole. In this case the commodity might be considered asdivided into 1200 parts, of which 200 would belong to the capitalist. If wages rose 5 per cent.,and instead of 1000 l. as wages, he paid 1050 l. he would still retain 150 l. as profits; in otherwords, he would sustain a reduction of only 2-1/2 per cent.
