Butfortheartisanwhoisaminutepartofavastorganisation，whosewagescomeoutofanindefinite，unexploredreservoirwhichmaybeaffectedbychangesincommerceoftheoriginandexactnatureofwhichheiscompletelyignorant，thereisnosuchpalpablelimit。Thespringsfromwhichhissubsistenceflowsmay，foranythinghesees，beinexhaustible。Heisaunitinalargemultitude，which，takenasawhole，mustundoubtedlybesomehowdependentuponthegeneralresourcesofthenation。Buthowtoexplaintheintricaterelationsofthedifferentclassesisaproblempuzzlingtothebesteconomists，andcapableofallmanneroffallacioussolutions。Asanindividual，theartisanmightlearnlikeotherpeopletobeprudent；buttoknowwhatisprudenthemustunderstandhisposition。Canthelabourerrightfullydemandorreasonablyexpecttogetalargershareofthewealthwhichheproduces，ormustheconfinehimselftolimitinghisnumbers，andtrustingtosupplyanddemandtobringhisrightshare？Heretheworkmanwasmisledbyallmanneroffalselights；anditbecameincumbentuponMilltoexplaintheposition。
Apopulationentirelydependentonwagesnever，saysMill，74*refrainsfromover-populationunlessfrom’actuallegalrestraint，’orsome’custom’which’insensiblymouldstheirconduct。’TheEnglishagriculturallabourerseemstomultiplyjustasfarashecan。75*All’checks’havegoneoraregoing。
Iftheartisanisbetteroff，itisduetotherapidexpansionofourtrade。Shouldthemarketforourmanufactures——notactuallyfalloffbutceasetoexpandasrapidlyasithasdoneforfiftyyears，wemayfallintothestateofIrelandbefore1846。Hehopes，indeed，thatthefactorypopulationmaybeintelligentenoughtoadaptitselftocircumstances。Thefactthatsolargeapartofourpopulationiscomposedofmiddleclassesorskilledartisansistheonlysecurityforsomerestraint。YetMill’sopinionevenoftheartisanwaslow。EnglishexperienceconfirmstheevidenceofEscherofZ黵ich。76*TheheadoftheEnglishartisanisturnedbytheideaofequality。’Whenheceasestobeservile，hebecomesinsolent。’77*Thereisnowhere，hesayselsewhere，78*anyfriendlysentimentbetweenlabourersandemployers。Theartisan，swampedbythegrowingmultiplicationofunskilledlabour，willtooprobably，wemayinfer，takeafalseviewofthesituation，andascribehispovertynottohisownneglectofMalthus，buttothegreedandhard-heartednessofthecapitalist。Suchananticipationwaslikelyenoughtoberealised。
Thisleadstothegreatproblemofthetruerelationbetweencapitalandlabour。ThedistinctivepeculiarityofEnglandwasthedependenceofthemassesuponwages。How，asMillhasasked，isthisstateofthingsreconcilablewithimprovement？Hewillassume，ashispredecessorshadsubstantiallydone，thatthecapitalistandlabourersareseparateclasses，andthatthelabourerderiveshiswholesupportfromthecapitalist。Thoughthisisnoteverywheretrue，itisforhimthereallyimportantcase。Moreover，heseemstothinkthattherulederivedfromconsideringtheclassesseparatelywillnotbealteredwhenthetwocharactersareunitedinindividuals。Thelabourer，sofarashehas’fundsinhand，’isalsoacapitalist；andthatpartofhisincomeisstilldecidedbythegenerallawofprofits。79*
Theassumptionofacompleteseparation，madeforconvenienceofargument，mightnodoubtbeconfoundedwithastatementoffact。
Atanyrate，itismerelyanexplicitavowalofthetacitassumptionoftheorthodoxeconomists。
Here，then，wepassfromMalthustoRicardo。MilladoptstheRicardianscheme，thoughtryingtomakeitmoreelastic。
Ricardo’sdoctrineofa’minimum’rateofwagestowhichthe’generalrate’constantlyapproximateshasenoughtruthforthe’purposesofabstractscience。’80*Therateindeedvarieswiththestandardofliving，andthat，aswehaveseen，isacriticalpoint。Yetthemainoutlinesofthetheoryremain。Aspopulationpressesupontheland，thelandlordgetsthebenefitofhis’monopolyofthebettersoil，’andcapitalistandlabourerdividetheremainder。Profitsandwages，asRicardohadsaid，varyinversely；a’riseofgeneralwagesfallsonprofits；thereisnopossiblealternative。’81*Here，indeed，animportantmodificationmustbemadeinRicardo’swords，inordertostatewhatRicardo’reallymeant。’82*Profitdepends，notuponwagessimply，butuponthe’costoflabour。’Thelabourerisnotafixedquantity，representingsomany’foot-pounds’ofenergy；hisefficiency，asMillargued，mayvaryindefinitelywithhismoralandintellectualqualities；83*itmaybeprofitabletopayfortheeffectivelabourdoublethewagesoftheineffective；and，inpointoffact，’thecostoflabourisfrequentlyatitshighestwherewagesarelowest。’84*
Thusinterpreted，Ricardo，likeMalthus，admitsofprogress。
Byimprovinginefficiency，andbymaintaininghisstandardoflife，thelabourer’spositionmaybeimproved。Still，however，improvementsupposesadueregardtotheinterestsofthecapitalists，whomakealltheadvancesandreceivealltheproduce。Herewehavetheolddoctrineofthe’tendencyofprofitstoaminimum。’85*Thistheory，admittedthoughinadequatelyexplainedbyAdamSmith，hadbeenillustratedbyE。
G。Wakefield，andasMillthinks，mostscientificallytreatedbyhisfriendEllis。Anotherwriter，towhomMillreferswithhisusualgenerosity，wasJohnRae，whoseNewPrinciplesofPoliticalEconomyhad，hethinks，doneinregardtoaccumulationofcapitalwhatMalthushaddoneinregardtopopulation。86*Thenecessityofresortingtoinferiorsoils，whichenrichesthelandowner，causesthedifficultyofraisingthelabourer’s’realwages。’
Profitsarelowerednotbythe’competitionofcapitalists，’butbythelimitationofthenationalresources。Asthedifficultyofraisingnewsuppliesbecomesmorepressing，the’costoflabour’
rises，andthecapitalist’sprofitsdiminish。Now，ineverycountry，asRaehadshown，thereisacertain’effectivedesireofaccumulation。’87*Itvarieswidely，andcorresponds，wemaysay，totheprinciplewhichlimitspopulation——the’effectivedesire’ofpropagation。Thereisacertainrateofprofitwhichwillinducementosave，andsavingistheonesourceofcapital。
Hence，iftherateobtainablefallstothispoint，savingwillcease，thecapitalwhichsupportslabourwillnotincrease，andthecountrywillbeinthe’so-calledstationarystate。’Suchastate，nodoubt，ispossibleandoftenactual。Givenanationforcedtodrawitsresourcesfromafixedarea，andunabletoimproveitsmethodsofcultivation，itisobviousthatitmayreachapointatwhichitcanonlyjustmaintainitsactualposition。Millholdsnotonlythatsucharesultispossible，butthatitisalwaysimminent。Inan’oldcountry，’hesays，’therateofprofitishabituallywithin，asitwere，ahair’s-breadthoftheminimum，andthecountrythereforeontheveryvergeofthestationarystate。’88*Hedoesnotmean，heexplains，thatsuchastateislikelysoontobereachedinEurope，butthat，ifaccumulationcontinuedandnothingoccurredtoraisetherateofprofit，thestationarystatewouldbeveryquicklyreached。WehavestilltheMalthusianview。Wearealways’withinahair’s-breadth’ofthedeadwallwhichwillabsolutelylimitprogress。Improvementsareinfactconstantlystavingofftheimpendingcatastrophe。Wearedrifting，sotospeak，towardsalee-shore，where，ifnotwrecked，weshallatleastcometoastandstill。AgainandagainwemanagetomakeaLittleway，andbynewdevicestoweatheranotherdangerouspoint。Byprudence，too，wemayturneachnewadvantagetoaccount，andimproveourconditionbyrefrainingfromincreasingournumbers。Butthedangerisalwaysthreatening。
OnenoteworthyresultisMill’schapteruponthestationarystate。89*Hehas，itseems，beensoimpressedbytheprobabilitythathewillfindrefugefromhisfearsbyfacingtheworst。Afterall，arenotthegrapessour？Ifweareunabletogrowricher，isthelossofwealthsogreatamisfortune？Heturnstothinkofthe’trampling，crushing，elbowing，andtreadingoneachother’sheelswhichformtheexistingtypeofhumanlife。’90*Issuchastatedesirable？InAmerica，whereallprivilegesareabolished，povertyunknown，andthesixpointsoftheChartistsaccepted，themainresultachievedisthat’thewholeofonesexisdevotedtodollar-huntingandthewholeoftheothertobreedingdollar-hunters。’91*Coarsestimuliareneededforcoarseminds；butabetteridealshouldbepossible。
Wemightaimatanorderquitecompatiblewiththe’stationarystate，’wherelabourersshouldbecomfortable，noenormousfortunesaccumulated，andamuchlargerpartofthepopulationfreefrommechanicaltoilandenabledto’cultivatefreelythegracesoflife。’NorisitdesirabLethatcultivationshouldspreadtoeverycorneroftheworld，everyflowerywasteploughedupandallwildanimalsextirpated。’Aworldfromwhichsolitudeisextirpatedisaverypoorideal。’
MillagreedwithRuskin，thoughRuskindidnotagreewithMill，and，indeed，calledhimagoose。Astationarystateofwealthneednot，saysMill，implyastationarystateofthe’artofliving。’Thatartwasmorelikelytoimprovewhenwewerenotallengrossedbythe’artofgettingon。’HowfarthatistrueI
donotpresumetosay。Itseemspossiblethatinsuchastatethestruggletobestationarymightbeaskeen，thoughadvancewouldbehopeless。But，withoutcriticisingatheorywhichrepresentsratheratemporaryprotestthanasettledconviction，wemaybecontenttonoticehowfarremovedwasthistypicaleconomistfromthegrovellingtendenciesoftenascribedtohiskind。Mill，asevenCarlylewouldhaveadmitted，wasnotameredevoteeof’pig’s-wash。’
ThisvisionofastationarystatecomesinthebookinwhichMillpassesfromthe’statics，’ashecallsit，tothe’dynamics’
ofpoliticaleconomy。Hispurposeistotracetheinfluenceofindustrialprogress。Hisfirstchapter92*noticesthevastmechanicaldiscoveries，theincreasedsecurityofsocietyandgreatercapacityforunitedaction，whichgivereasonsforhopingindefinitegrowthofaggregatewealthThereis，hethinks，’notmuchreasontoapprehend’thatpopulationwilloutrun，thoughwemustsadlyadmitthepossibilitythatitwillkeepupwith，productionandaccumulation。Thisleadstothechaptersinwhichhediscussestheeffectofprogressuponthevariousclassesconcerned。93*Howdoesthe’progressofindustry’affectthethreeclasses——landowners，capitalists，andlabourers？Landisafixedquantity；butpopulationmayincrease，capitalmayincrease，andtheartsofproductionmayimprovebysupposingeachtoincreaseseparatelyandthentogether。Alongandcarefulanalysisgivesusthegeneralresult。Itisenoughtonoticetheconclusion。94*
Landrepresentsthefixed’environment’oftherace。Theproprietorsofthelandwillbeenrichedbyeconomicalprogressandthegrowingnecessityforresorttoinferiorsoils。Thecostofraisingthelabourer’ssubsistenceincreases，andprofitsthereforetendtofall。Theimprovementoftheartsofagriculturalproductionactsasa’counteractingforce。’Itrelaxesthepressureandpostponesthestationarystate。ForthemomenttheimprovementmaydiminishasRicardohadargued，butinthelongrunmustpromote，the’enrichmentoflandlords，’and，ifpopulationincreases，willtransfertothemthewholebenefit。
Mill，aswehaveseen，wasfullyalivetotheenormousincreaseinpasttimesofthegeneralefficiencyoflabourandtotheindefinitepossibilitiesofthefuture。Yettheimprovementseemshere，again，toberegardedratherascheckingthegravitationtowardsthestationarystate，thanasjustifyinganyconfidenthopesofimprovement。Meanwhiletheelevationofthelabouringclassesdependsessentiallyupontheirtakingadvantageofsuchimprovementstoraisetheirstandard，insteadoftreatinganadditiontotheirmeans’simplyasconvertibleintofoodforagreaternumberofchildren。’95*