MANAGEMENT 



233 



represented, let us say, by the figure OYHL, or the whole prod- 

 uct of an amount of labor represented by the line OL. After this 

 is paid he gets the whole product of the additional labor, which 

 additional labor is measured in the figure along the line LX. 



According to the figure he 

 could afford to apply a quan- 

 tity of labor represented by the 

 line OC, since the last unit of 

 that quantity produces a prod- 

 uct equal to its cost, both the 

 product and cost of that final 



. . ^^ unit of labor being repre- 

 sented by the line BC. ' 

 But a share tenant, paying, let us say, one third of the prod- 

 uct as rent for the same farm, would get for the successive 

 units of his work only the remaining two thirds of the product, 

 represented by the space below the dotted curve FDGX. If he 

 should carry his cultivation to the same degree of intensity, 

 he would be losing money on a part of his work; that is, if he 

 applied a quantity of labor represented by the line OC, the last 

 unit of his work would cost him an amount represented by the 

 line BC, but he would get in return for it only an amount repre- 

 sented by the line GC. In short, he would find it unprofitable 

 to expend more labor than is represented by the line OE, that 

 being the quantity whose final unit yields him as much as it costs 

 him, namely an amount represented by the line DE. To sum up, 

 under the terms of the diagram a cash tenant would find it to 

 his advantage to expend a quantity of labor represented by the 

 line; OC, producing a total product represented by the figure 

 OY BC, whereas the share tenant would find it to his advantage 

 to expend a smaller quantity of labor, represented by the line OE, 

 and producing a total product represented by the figure OYKE. 

 Th is demonstration proves that cash tenancy is superior to share 



