Advantages of Division of Labor. The advantages of a division of labor have been enumerated as follows: (1) A gain of time. A change of operations costs time. Less, time is also consumed in learning one's business, as the labor of each is more simple. (2) Greater skill is acquired, because each person confines himself to one operation. (3) Labor is used more advantageously. Some parts of an industrial process can be performed by a weak person, others require unusual physical strength; some require extraordinary intelligence, some can be performed by a man of very ordinary intellectual powers. Special capacities are best utilized, and work is found for all, young and old, weak and strong, stupid and intelligent. (4) Inventions are more frequent, because the industrial processes are so divided that it is easy to see just where an improvement is possible. Besides this, when a person is exclusively engaged in one simple operation, he often sees how the appliances he uses could be improved. Workmen have made many important inventions. (5) Capital is better utilized. Each workman uses one set of tools, or one part of a set, and keeps that employed all the time. When each workman does many things, he has many tools, and some are always idle. (6) Finally, where the division of labor results in the simplification of operations, it facilitates the substitution of machinery with mechanical power in place of direct human labor. It would, for example, probably be impracticable to make a machine which would directly convert leather into finished shoes. But it has been found a relatively simple matter to devise machines which will successfully accomplish each of the successive steps in shoemaking. Such a subdivision and simplification of manufacturing processes is only possible when they are conducted on a large scale. "It is the largeness of markets, the increased demand for great numbers of things of the same kind, and in some cases of things made with great accuracy, that leads to subdivision of labor; the chief effect of the improvement of machinery is to cheapen and make more accurate the work which would anyhow have been subdivided." 1 1 Marshall, Principles of Economics, 6th ed., p. 255. Effects upon the Worker. The effect of the introduction of machinery upon wages will be discussed in a later chapter, but here some attention must be given to the effect of division of labor and machinery upon the life of the worker. It is frequently said that when labor is rendered simple it loses both its attractiveness and its educational value. A man can enjoy his work when he manufactures a whole watch, bearing the impress of care and skill, but who can like the mere routine of feeding material into some machine? A workingman becomes a mere cog in a great mechanism, driven at a certain speed, day after day, with no further interest in the result of his labor than that it is the source of his daily wage. But much may be said on the other side. To a large extent the heaviest labor is done with mechanical appliances, and those movements which are very simple and regular are precisely the ones which are likely to be taken over by machinery, leaving to human beings the work which requires intelligence and skill. "Looked at broadly, is the average work of a laborer in a machine industry less dignified, less agreeable, less humanizing than it was before the industry reached the machine stage? From the nature of the question, it is dangerous to dogmatize, because neither the affirmative nor the negative is capable of being demonstrated. The negative view seems to rest mainly upon the assumption that it is more dignified to be occupied with a great many purely mechanical operations than with a very few. The old-fashioned shoemaker, for example, was largely occupied with purely mechanical operations, most of them of a very elementary nature, such as a machine can do quite as well as a man. Each of these operations required great concentration of attention, leaving him very little opportunity for other forms of mental activity. He was the slave of each particular task as truly as a modern machine worker can be said to be the slave of his single task. But the old-fashioned shoemaker had to turn from one kind of work to another. This increased the difficulty, and, on the whole, required of him a greater amount of concentration than is now required of the operator of a machine. The latter, who has but one routine task to learn, learns it easily, and can carry it out without very intense concentration of mind. His mind, therefore, would seem to be freer than that of the old hand worker, though there was more variety to the work of the latter. Whether this greater variety is to his advantage or disadvantage would be difficult to determine offhand. It looks as though the operator of a machine in a shoe factory, being relieved of the necessity of acquiring several forms of specialized manual dexterity, would be in a better position for free mental activity than the old-fashioned shoemaker." 1 It seems that those who declaim against factory life do not always distinguish those things which are temporary from things which are inherent in the system. Long hours, insanitary conditions of work, and frequent industrial accidents need not be inevitable accompaniments of the use of machinery. It is the efficiency of machine methods that makes leisure possible for the workingmen, and when they learn to use that leisure sanely, their condition will be far in advance of what it could be under more primitive methods of production. The charge is also brought against machine production that it is antagonistic to the development of art. Machine production means uniform production. It is possible that a growth in the desire for what is beautiful rather than cheap will limit the use of machinery in some directions (e.g. we may insist upon more hand work in the making of furniture), but an extensive use of machinery as a servant of art will always be necessary, and that in two ways: (1) For an appreciation of art there must be leisure, or at least leisurely work, and without machine methods this is not possible for the masses. (2) There is much work that is preliminary to the work of the artist, and that can be done by machinery. Will a building be less artistic because much of the heavy work of dressing the stone is done by machinery? Taken as a whole, however, we have probably been too much inclined to view progress as something that causes tons per capita to increase by leaps and bounds, rather than as something that improves the quality of our enjoyments. Territorial Division of Labor. The concentration of a certain industry in a particular region is often called the territorial division of labor, or the localization of industry. Illustrations are seen in the prominence of the boot and shoe industry in Massachusetts; the collar and cuff manufacture in Troy, New York; oyster canning in Baltimore; the manufacture of gloves in Gloversville and Johnstown, New York; of coke in the Con 1T. N. Carver, "Machinery and the Laborers," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. xxii, p. 230. nellsville district, Pennsylvania; of brassware in Waterbury, Connecticut; of carpets in Philadelphia; of jewelry in Providence, Rhode Island, and Attleboro and North Attleboro, Massachusetts; slaughtering and meat packing in Chicago; the manufacture of plated and britannia ware in Meriden, Connecticut; and of silk in Paterson, New Jersey. The following causes of localization have been mentioned: (1) proximity to raw material, (2) accessibility of markets, (3) presence of water power, (4) favorable climate, (5) availability of labor, (6) availability of capital, and (7) the momentum of an early start. The explanation of how these causes have operated in particular instances is left as an exercise for the student.1 Productive Organization of the American People. - According to the Census of 1910 about two fifths of the total population and about one half of the population ten years of age and over are engaged in gainful occupations. In the following table the extent to which persons in each age group are gainfully employed is shown for each sex: TABLE I NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE ENGAGED IN GAINFUL OCCUPATIONS FOR SPECIFIED AGE GROUPS OF MALES AND FEMALES: 19102 Consult Hall, "The Localization of Industry," Census Bulletin No. 244 (also found in Twelfth Census, Manufactures, Part i, p. cxc), and Ross, "The Localization of Industry," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. x, p. 247. Also the Federal Census of Manufactures for 1905, vol. i, Chap. xii. 2Thirteenth Census, vol. iv, p. 69. K Includes persons of unknown age. The following table shows the distribution of the gainful workers among the five main classes of occupations. The most striking facts are the decline in the relative importance of agricultural pursuits and the increase in the relative importance of trade and transportation. TABLE II DISTRIBUTION BY MAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN GAINFUL OCCU The broad territorial division of labor is seen when these percentages are given separately for groups of states: TABLE III PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS IO YEars of Age anD OVER ENGAGED IN GAINFUL OCCUPATIONs, by GeographIC DIVISIONS: 19101 |