ON WAGES AND THE HOURS OF LABOUR. 475 
where a double shift, working the reduced hours, would produce the 
same quantity as a single shift working the original hours.! 
Before considering on which of the classes of producers loss in 
production will fall the question arises, Will the loss be restricted to 
those industries (A) in which the reduction takes place, or will it extend 
to other industries (B)? If the a producers consume their own products 
the loss will fail on them; but, as a rule, one form of wealth is created 
in order to be exchanged for another form, and hence to the extent that 
the B producers are consumers of the a produce they will participate in 
the reduction of the net produce. If the demand of the B producers con- 
tinues in intensity they may have to bear the whole loss: on the other 
hand, the demand may fall off to such a degree that the a producers 
will suffer; but the probability is that the loss will be shared between 
the two classes, and therefore all industries will tend to be affected. 
The reduction in hours being supposed to be unequal in the different 
trades that form the 4 group, the corresponding reduction in net produce 
will also be unequal. Hence producers and consumers will be unequally 
affected, and the ‘economic equilibrium’ that existed previous to the 
reduction in hours will be disturbed. Capital and labour will then tend 
to migrate from one industry to another until a new equilibrium is estab- 
lished, under which each industry will, everything considered, hold out a 
hope of the same reward to the producer. 
Add to this, that the proposal for a working day of a fixed number of 
hours takes no regard of many elements that enter into the determination 
of the amount of net produce that an industry must yield in order to attract 
capital and labour. For instance, the ‘intensity’ of labour is one of the 
important factors in determining the reward of labour. A fixed, unvary- 
ing working day would apparently require from the man whose labour is 
heavy and trying the same number of hours’ work as from him whose 
labour is ight and easy. But working men—so long as human nature is 
what it is—will expect that the degree of irksomeness in their work will, 
if ignored in the hours of labour, be recognised in the reward of labour. 
By the migration of labour this result will be attained. 
The migration of capital or of labour will depend on several circum- 
stances. Hixed or sunk capital cannot easily be moved from one in- 
dustry to another. A railway is immovable, and any loss resulting frora 
a reduction of hours cannot be avoided except by a sacrifice of the capital 
represented by the permanent way. The shaft of a mine, too, cannot be 
removed, but the profits of mining are supposed to replace the capital 
spent in sinking the shaft before the lease of the mine expires. Machinery 
Wears out in a given time, but by allowing for depreciation capital spent 
on building returns to the capitalist. The argument that fixed capital is 
immovable cannot, therefore, be taken but with large limitations arising 
out of the ‘degree of fixity.’ Besides, fixed capital is not co-extensive 
with wealth devoted to production. Various economists have pointed 
out the influence on production of “loan capital.’ The great characteristic 
of such capital is that it exists in such a form that it can readily be di- 
verted from one industry to another ; and we may expect that it will seek 
those industries in which there is the possibility of the greatest reward. 
The extent to which shifts may be adopted is discussed under the section 
devoted to capital. 
