in another necessity, for which he is not compensated. He must pay higher money wages to his laborers [if they retain the same quantity of real wages]. This necessity, being common to him with all other capitalists, forms no ground for a rise of price. The price will rise, until it has placed him in as good a situation, in respect of profits, as other employers of labor; it will rise so as to indemnify him for the increased labor which he must now employ in order to produce a given quantity of food; but the increased wages of that labor are a burden common to all, and for which no one can be indemnified. It will be paid wholly from profits.
Thus we see that increased wages, when common to all descriptions of productive laborers, and when really representing a greater Cost of Labor, are always and necessarily at the expense of profits. And by reversing the cases, we should find in like manner that diminished wages, when representing a really diminished Cost of Labor, are equivalent to a rise of profits. But the opposition of pecuniary interest thus indicated between the class of capitalists and that of laborers is to a great extent only apparent. Real wages are a very different thing from the Cost of Labor, and are generally highest at the times and places where, from the easy terms on which the land yields all the produce as yet required from it, the value and price of food being low, the cost of labor to the employer, notwithstanding its ample remuneration, is comparatively cheap, and the rate of profit consequently high, as at present in the United States. We thus obtain a full confirmation of our original theorem that Profits depend on the Cost of Labor: or, to express the meaning with still greater accuracy, the rate of profit and the cost of labor vary inversely as one another, and are joint effects of the same agencies or causes.