Distribution as Determined by a Law of Rent
John Bates Clark
[Part 2 of 2]
We are now ready to prove our theses. Interest is the rent of the
social fund of pure capital. It is a differential gain, in the fullest
sense of the term. It is measurable by the Ricardian formula, and will
bear all the test to which a rent-producer can be subjected.
Ground rent is useful as a type of different gain, and here
the major service of the traditional theory of rent ends. The type
itself is not a complete one: it fails at one point, but up to that
point the income that a landlord gets from his property illustrates
the nature of what society gets from its fund of pure capital.
Let us simplify the current law of rent by disregarding for a
moment the existence of what has figured as an auxiliary capital, and
consider that land is worked by labor that is practically
empty-handed. The change affects no principle now under consideration,
since the thing that we have to prove could be established as
completely if we were to keep the formula in its more cumbersome form.
The differential gain of labor alone applied to fertile land is the
more useful type of true rent. This labor is subject to a law of
diminishing returns. Put one man only on a square mile of prairie, and
he will get a rich return. Two laborers on the same groUnd will get
less per man; and, if you enlarge the force to ten, the last man will
perhaps get wages only. All the earlier men will create surplus
products over and above their wages, and the sum of these surpluses is
the rent of the field.
For a fixed area of land read now a fixed fund of pure social
capital. At one moment this is, in reality, an exact sum; and by our
own hypothesis we have prolonged the conditions of that moment. In a
static view pure capital is a fund of a given amount invested partly
in land and partly in made instruments. These instruments lose their
identity, as old ones are used up and new ones are created; but they
keep their general character. A hoe replaces a hoe, and a ship
replaces a ship. The last man who works in connection with the fixed
social fund is like the last man who is set tilling the square mile of
land: he creates less than any of his predecessors.
If we pursue the common method of illustrating this
principle, we shall introduce workers into the force one at a time,
and note the product created by each of them. On this supposition one
particular man is the last in point of time. The supposition makes the
study for the moment dynamic, since, in addition to the change in the
number of the workers, it involves changes in the forms that the fixed
fund of capital assumes. When the workers are few, the instruments
will have a certain character; and, when the men are numerous, the
appliances will have a different character. Such a dynamic study is,
however, admissible as an introduction to a study of a static
condition. We more readily see how interest and wages are determined
in a stationary state by noting the way in which the condition is
reached. Let the fund of capital, then, be fixed in amount, and let a
force of workers be gradually introduced, as was done in the case of
the field in the typical illustration of rent. It will be seen that
the pure capital is like the field, in that it is subject to a law of
diminishing returns. A few men using a large fund create a large
product per man: new men joining the force add less to the output, and
the last man who comes adds least of all. Each earlier worker creates
a surplus over and above the amount created by the last one, and the
sum of al1 these surpluses is the rent of the fund.
We might treat the whole world as an isolated society, such
as, indeed, it ultimately will be if the flow of capital and of labor
from place to place shall ever become sufficiently unimpeded. On the
other hand, we may take as typical a smaller society working in
isolation. An island in the sea not reached by ships or an inland
country with a prohibitory tariff on the importation and the
exportation of both men and material wealth would afford the
illustration that we seek. We need no one to tell us that, here as
elsewhere, we are so simplifying the ideal society that we make it, as
a picture, grotesquely unlike the actual world. It is like it in
certain primary facts, and it is these that we are studying. We
isolate these facts, and by a study of them get principles that are
real, and that will outlive the changeful influences that modify their
operation.
Give to an isolated community a billion dollars'
worth of capital, and introduce gradually a corresponding force of
workers. Put a thousand workers into the rich environment that the
conditions afford, and their product per capita will be enormous.
Their work will be aided by capital to the extent of a million dollars
per man. This sum will be invested in such forms as the workers can
use; and, if we were to allow ourselves to imagine the forms that such
a condition would require, we should bring before the mind a picture
of automatic machinery, electrical motors, chemical wonders in the way
of soil creating, and the like. It is the picture of a state that is
slowly and remotely approached wherever capital greatly in creases
relatively to population.
Enlarge the number of workers to ten thousand, and with the
appliances at their service, changed in form as they must be to adapt
them to the uses of the larger number of men, the output per man,
though smaller than before, will still suggest the gains of a
fortunate gold-hunter. Decuple the force again: the working
environment will still be a marvel of fruitfulness, but the product
per man will be greatly reduced. Decuple it once more, and let a
million workers use a billion dollars' worth of capital: the situation
now approaches the actual condition of the world; and the output of a
man's labor may be supposed to be correspondingly near to that which
actual conditions afford.
It would be pleasant to be able to show the detailed way in
which this diminution of the product per capita is brought about. In
certain earlier studies I have indicated the nature of the sterilizing
of the worker's environment that is the cause of the diminution, and
expect in due time to present it more fully. A small capital per man
means a list of working appliances that is scanty and cheap. It means
land that is contracted in area and badly improved, buildings that are
unsubstantial, roadways that are poor, and tools and machines that are
of a makeshift character. It means that what instruments of production
there are are cheap and perishable, and th at there are not enough of
them. There is little danger that either scientist or practical men
will dispute the fact that, in the sense in which we are using terms,
a reduction of the fund of pure capital entails a per capita
diminution of the product. If the fund of capital remains the same, an
increase of the working force has the same effect.
In our assumed case the last man added to the working force
earns wages only. Why is this? Here, indeed, is a point of much
consequence. We made the same statement in regard to land: the last
worker on a section of fertile soil earns his wages, and no more; and
so does the last comer in the working force employed in connection
with a fixed amount of pure capital. The reasons for it in the two
cases are different; and a study of the nature of the difference shows
that the earnings of land are a sort of mock rent. They are equal to a
differential product, but are not the genuine thing; while the
earnings of the entire fund of social capital, as embodied in land and
in all other productive instruments, are a true differential product.
Why does the last man on the farm earn wages only? The farmer
is here the master of the situation, and he hires men from other
employments till the product that he gets by means of their labor only
offsets the sums that he must pay to them. In the general range of
employments there is fixed, in some way, a standard of wages: a farmer
must pay the current rate if he is to retain his men. It is, of
course, true that agriculture is a part of the broader industrial
field in which wages are fixed, and that what is paid in agriculture
has its effect on the amount that must elsewhere be paid, if men are
to be lured away from the farm to the shop, the railroad, etc. That
which is important and is not likely to be disputed is that in any
limited section of the general field of labor wages must conform to a
standard that is set in and for that general field. Competition tends
to equalize wages: it causes them to take, in any one employment, a
level that is, with certain well-known allowances, uniform for all
employment. What determines that level? What fixes general wages? The
Ricardian law of ground rent affords no answer to this question; but
the more comprehensive law of differential gain answers it in a
twofold way. It guides us to one solution of the problem, and directly
gives us another.
The last man added to the force that works with a fixed fund
of social capital earns only his wages, but this is not because he is
lured into the system from without and must be paid just the wages
that elsewhere prevail. When we speak of the general field of
industry, and the entire fund of capital, there is no without in the
case. The man is in the system from the first, and must stay there;
and the conditions existing within it fix his wages. The law in the
case is that he gets what he is worth to society. If natural
tendencies could completely have their way, the final man would get as
a wage what he actually produces. It is the final productivity of
labor that fixes its pay.
In a static view of the system, we abandon the conception of
a working force gradually enlarging, as it was made to do in our
illustration. Capital and working force are both fixed in amount
through the period that we consider. There is no particular man who is
the last to arrive in point of time, but any one may become the final
man by giving up his work for a few days and then applying for it
again. He tends, as we have said, to get as wages what his presence in
the working system is worth. Let him stop working and continue eating,
estimate the net diminution of the social income, and by natural law
this will be his wage; and this will be the wage of every other man.
What society loses when one man stops working, or what it gains when
he recommences working, set the general standard.
How do we know that this is true? Frankly, more needs to be
said on this point than there is room to say here. It is the
competition of employers that, under the free working of natural law,
gives to the marginal man the full amount of his product. If employer
A is making more out of the man's labor than he pays to him, employer
B is interested to overbid his competitor and get the man away. The
presence, not of B only, but of C, D, E, etc., insures that, in the
end, the worker will get his value.(3*) What is now evident is that
each of the earlier increments of labor employed in connection with a
fixed fund of pure social capital creates a surplus, over and above
the product of the last one, and that the sum of all these surpluses
is the rent of the social fund. Each surplus is a true differential
product, a difference between the amount created by a particular
increment of labor and that created by the final increment. As the
product of the final increment sets the standard of general wages, the
earlier product may be measured by comparing them with wages: we may
say that each of the early laborers creates a surplus above what he
gets as pay. This, however, is introducing a secondary standard of
measurement and taking from the surplus that we are testing the
character of a true differential gain. The ultimate fact is that each
earlier worker creates more than the last one. The rent of the fund of
pure capital -- which is interest as an aggregate -- is the sum total
of these differences.
It is now clear that, in the strict sense of terms, the rent
of land is not a true differential product, though it is equal to one
in amount. The surplus products of the early increments of labor
applied to agricultural land are amounts remaining in the farmers'
hands after wages are paid. The farmer hires men at the rate of pay
that the general market has established, till no further increase is
profitable. The general rate of wages controls the last man's product,
since it determines how many men shall be employed on a fertile field.
In a similar way the prevalent rate of wages determines what quality
of land shall be taken into cultivation: it locates what is called, in
the simple and common form of the Ricardian law, the "margin of
cultivation." Wage-earners are at liberty to use rentless land,
and they do so when they can earn as much there as elsewhere. If the
pay of laborers in the general range of employments were to rise, the
poorest land now in use would be thrown out of cultivation: if it were
to fall, poorer land than any now used would be taken into
cultivation. The product of labor at the margin will always conform to
general wages, simply because the margin itself will advance or recede
till this conformity results. Philosophically, therefore, the rent of
a piece of land, if for simplicity auxiliary capital be disregarded,
is its product less the wages of the labor that tills it. The pay of
the farmer's men conforms directly to the rate that prevails in the
general labor market; and the data for calculating the landlord's
claim are, therefore, the product of the farm and the rate of general
wages. If, however, land were the only instrument in use, the case
would be different. The margin of tillage would not advance and recede
as wages in industries mainly outside of agriculture should fall or
rise: there would be no industries outside of the agricultural limit,
and the product of the last increment of work applied to the soil
itself would constitute the standard of wages. The land in this case
would yield a true differential product, since the rent of it would
consist of the sum of the differences between the products of the
earlier increments of labor applied to it and the product of the last
one. This is exactly the case in reference to the rent of the social
fund of capital. It is a true differential gain, consisting of the sum
of the differences between the products of the earlier increments of
labor used in connection with it and the product of the last one.
We have now a law that fixes the rate of wages and the
aggregate amount of interest. We can get the total amount of wages by
a simple process of multiplication; and we can get the rate of
interest by a process of division. We can, however, apply the law in a
reversed order, and get wages as an aggregate and interest as a rate.
Let the labor force be fixed in amount, and let the fund of capital
that it uses increase. It is the successive increment of capital that
are now subject to the law of diminishing returns. Mass the labor, for
illustration, in some isolated and desert corner of the earth, and
give to it, in the form of soil and simple tools, a first instalment
of capital. The product of this little fund of productive wealth will
be very great. As we multiply the amount of the fund that is invested
in working instruments, we shall reduce the amount per unit that it
produces. Of a succession of units of pure capital brought into use in
connection with a fixed labor force, each one adds less to the output
of industry than does any of its predecessors.(4*)
The parallelism is complete between the phenomena of a fixed
fund of social capital with an increasing force of labor, and, on the
other hand, the phenomena of a fixed force of social labor with an
increasing fund. The last unit of social capital in our present
illustration fixes by its product the general rate of interest, as in
the former illustration the last increment of labor fixed by its
product the rate of wages. All the earlier units of capital now create
surpluses over and above the standard set by the product of the final
unit, and the sum total of these surpluses is the rent of the labor
force. It is the aggregate of the differential gains resulting from
the application, in connection with the fixed labor force, of the
earlier increments of capital. Wages in the aggregate are the rent of
a fund of human energy.
With extreme brevity we have stated a law that is as
comprehensive as anything in economics. We have not referred to the
obstacles that the law encounters in practice, nor have we made an
attempt to measure the deviations from the theoretical standard that
the actual distribution of the social income reveals. As real as
gravitation is the law that determines the standard. The inference
that we draw is already established as an unquestioned fact in the
consciousness of business men; namely, that, as capital increases,
while other things remained unchanged, interest falls, and, as the
labor force increases, if other things remain the same, wages fall.
The prospect of high wages depends on a relatively rapid increase of
capital. The principle of differential gain that is at the basis of
this conclusion does not figure in the popular mind. This principle
has further applications that rival in importance those that we have
stated, and that can only be indicated here in concluding paragraphs.
It dominates production as well as distribution, is an element in
determining rates of exchange, and furnishes the ultimate standard of
measurement of market values. It, in fact, identifies production with
distribution, and shows that what a social class gets is, under
natural law, what it contributes to the general output of industry.
Completely stated, the principle of differential gain affords a theory
of Economic Statics.
********
1. In the above study we first excluded pure profit from
consideration, on the ground that it is a dynamic income. What is
commonly and loosely termed profit is partly the wages of directive
labor; and this labor is included in the social fund of human energy
that we have studied. The earnings of the work of management are,
therefore, rent in the same sense as are the earnings of other labor.
There is another element in the composite returns of employers
that is profit in an accurate sense of the term. It results from an
unbalanced condition of industrial groups. Conditions are continually
appearing in which too little is produced of certain commodities to
meet the normal demand for them, and in which they sell for more than
enough to pay interest on all pure capital and wages on all the
working energy employed in producing them. Included in this total
interest will be the rent of any land that may be used in these
industries, and included in wages will be the rewards of managers'
time and effort. Above all these claims, the selling price of the
goods may afford a residuum of pure profit. A discover that should
make the production of aluminium cheap would afford a profit on the
making of it, until this industry should become so much enlarged as to
put upon the market as much of this metal as, under the new
conditions, would be normal. After the discovery the competition of
different producers would enlarge the production of this metal till
the point would be reached at which it would not be profitable to move
labor and capital from other working groups to this one. At this point
the returns of the industry would be, theoretically, absorbed in wages
and interest. In a balanced condition of industries superior managers
will earn more than others, and superior workers of every kind will do
the same; but that gain which results from the distinctively dynamic
cause, the discovery or change that throws production temporarily out
of balance, ceases to exist. Such a condition of universal equilibrium
is never practically reached, and at many points in the industrial
system -- not for any length of time the same points -- pure profit is
always to be found. This changeful element of gain is the one part of
the actual social income not governed by a law of rent.
2. As the product of land may be measured from a standard
afforded by the returns from the poorest soil in cultivation, so the
product of labor may be measured from a standard set by the returns
from the least efficient men in the working force. Land that lies
beyond the margin of cultivation would give crops of some kind, if it
were tilled; but they would be so scanty as not to reward the labor
that it would require to get them. So the labor of men who are so
weak, ignorant, or untrustworthy as to be beyond the margin of
employment would yield something if it were utilized; but this yield
would be so meagre as not to reward the capital that it would be
necessary to use in connection with it. An entrepreneur cannot afford
to intrust to such men any part of his productive fund. In the case of
labor we locate the no-rent line in a qualitative way when we find men
whose room in the complex system of social industry is worth just as
much as their company. The product of all labor above this line -- and
that is the sum total of wages -- may be treated as rent of superior
personal quality.
In the same way, it may be shown that interest is due to the
superior quality of those working instruments in which pure capital is
invested. There are appliances of every kind in existence that are so
poor that it does not pay to expend any labor in connection with them.
There are no-rent buildings, ships, machines, mercantile stocks, etc.
If we so desire, we may measure the products of better appliances by
comparing them with what might be had by using these. In a qualitative
way these instrument lie on the margin of utilization.
3. It is said that there is no-rent land, but that there is
no such thing as no-interest capital; and that land and artificial
instrument are in this way radically unlike. Here is a confusion of
ideas and a false deduction. There is rent-paying land and rentless
land; and there are rent-paying buildings, machines, ships, etc., and
there are rentless ones. Good land, on the one hand, and good
buildings, etc., on the other, embody pure capital; and this always
pays interest. The poor land and the poor buildings, etc., embody no
pure capital, and, of course, yield no interest. The true difference
between land and other things does not lie here.
4. A point of paramount importance is the mode of measuring
the two funds, those respectively of pure capital and of working
energy, that figure in distribution. In what sense, for example, does
the capital of society need to become large, in order to make wages
high? The standard of market value here fails, since a social capital
might, by this standard, seem large, when by a truer standard it is
small. Put a colony of men on a rocky island, and give to them just
seeds and tools enough to keep them from starvation. The value of what
they have will be great, and by the standard of the market the capital
in their hands will seem to be a large one; but it is clear that it
will not aid labor efficiently.
The true standard of measurement is here that of total
utility. A colony on a fertile continent, with all the working
appliances that they could well handle, might have a capital that
would be smaller, if measured by its market value, than the one in the
former illustration; but it total utility would be very large. Give to
the colonists the appliances one at a time, estimate the value of each
increment of capital as it comes, add all these values together, and
you have the measure of the total utility of their social capital.
When this is large wages are high. On a limitless and fertile
continent, where men and tools were scarce, the returns from labor
might be large, though the capital, if measured by the standard of
market value, might be almost nothing. For such static measurements as
are made when one man's capital is compared with another's, while the
social fund, as a whole, remains unchanged, the market standard
suffices. The labor force of society is measured by a similar process
that gives its total efficiency.
5. The principle of rent in its profounder applications
furnishes an ultimate basis for the measurement of all values. Labor
has been loosely taken as the final standard that is as satisfactory
as any; but labor, concretely regarded, resolves itself into a
heterogeneous list of act that are incapable of being quantitatively
compared with each other, and are quite incapable of being compared
with commodities. The common element of personal sacrifice is present
in most labor; but it varies in degree in the case of work of
different kinds, and in nearly all occupations it is slight during the
early periods of the working day.
Every worker has his point of equilibrium of gains and
sacrifices involved in production, or the point in each day at which,
if he had his way, he would stop work, because what he might earn by
further work would not offset the sacrifice that it would cost. The "disutility"
of the work at this point is just equivalent to the utility of the
things secured by it. Now, if we fix this point in the case of every
laborer in the entire force, the line that we draw through all these
point becomes a social line of equilibrium of gains and sacrifices
involved in production. Just at this line society, as a whole, stops
working, because what it here gets by its labor barely offsets the
burden of working for it. An indefinitely narrow margin lying just
within this outer boundary of social labor constitutes the true final
increment of the fund of working energy. An influence that should call
for more labor would tend, in the end, to affect the entire line of
equilibrium, and to crowd the whole social margin of labor outwards.
The sacrifice entailed by the labor that is located along
this entire social margin afford our ultimate basis for measuring
values. The disutility of this labor just offsets the utility of the
things secured by it. A brief study would show that these particular
things are the final ones of their several kind, and are therefore the
ones that figure in the adjustment of market values. In other words,
the social labor that yield no subjective rent just offset, by the
burden that it entails on workers, the service rendered by the things
that it produces; and these are the particular things that appear as
determining exchange values. It is true, also, that these are things
that, as consumed by workers, yield no consumer's rent. We are here on
the border of an intricate and extensive study. We have located a
social line where work and its fruit are subjective equivalent. It is
a psychological border region to which, as to a commercial mark,
society brings it good for valuation.
Labor is not the only sacrifice that result in producing
good. Abstinence entails, as we have seen, a burden that, in important
respect, acts in a parallel way. Every capitalist has his point of
equilibrium of sacrifice and gain, and society has it line of
equilibrium. Marginal capitalization, or that which is barely
remunerative, locates itself along this social line. Society in it
organic entirety incurs by it abstinence a disutility that balances
the utility of the things that it get by means of it. Moreover,
through good produced by labor and by capital respectively, it is
possible to establish a relation between the two different
disutilities entailed on society by production, the sacrifices
respectively involved in effort and in abstinence. Here, again, we are
nearing deep water. We can see that the sacrifice of deferring
enjoyment is, like that of labor itself, a second basis for measuring
values. Every subjective utility has its equivalent of the one kind as
well as of the other; and the psychological currency that measures all
values is inherently bimetallic. It is posed of two disutilities, both
of which are distinctively social, or of two sacrifices made, in each
case, not by particular men, but by an entire social force. What all
laborers sacrifice in supplying the minute fraction of the day's work
that lies just within the line of equilibrium that we have traced,
also what all capitalists sacrifice in submitting to that final bit of
abstaining or waiting that lies just within their own collective line
of equilibrium, -- these constitute the subjective double standard on
which all measurements of value rest.
NOTES:
1. Of course the desire to provide for a family and to
accumulate wealth for future needs is included among those to be
gratified through the fruits of labor. Work naturally stops when the
fulfilment of any desire whatever that can be insured by the wage of
another hour is estimated by the worker at less than its personal
cost.
2. For the bearing of these facts on the general law of value
see the summary at the end of this article.
3. In a full analysis of the subject it will appear that we
ought strictly to speak, not of marginal men, but of final
quantitative increments of pure labor energy. The last fractional hour
of labor expended in a day by an entire working force is the true
final increment of labor that enters the market; and a minute fraction
of it is furnished by every man in the force. It is the product of
this very composite final increment of labor that sets the standard of
wages. Only for simplicity of illustration do we speak of the last man
added to the forceas furnishing the final increment.
4. As the fund increases, its forms of embodiment adapt
themselves to the needs of the men who are to use them; and, on the
other hand, the forms of labor itself, the nature of the concrete acts
in which the fund of pure working energy expends itself, adapt
themselves in character to the instruments that are at hand.
Return
to Part 1
|