The Wealth of Nations

de l’expérience ordinaire, on peut voir facilement que la différence de prix qu’on paie pour le travail journalier est fondée sur des raisons naturelles et sensibles.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “either evidently.” ↩

Above here and here. ↩

The foregoing introductory paragraphs would lead a logical reader to expect part 1 of the chapter to be entitled: “Inequalities of pecuniary wages and profit which merely counterbalance inequalities of other advantages and disadvantages.” The rather obscure title actually chosen is due to the fact that nearly a quarter of the part is occupied by a discussion of three further conditions which must be present in addition to “perfect freedom” in order to bring about the equality of total advantages and disadvantages. The chapter would have been clearer if this discussion had been placed at the beginning, but it was probably an afterthought. ↩

Below, here through here. ↩

See Idyllium xxi.

—⁠Smith

This merely describes the life of two poor fishermen. The note appears first in ed. 2.

—⁠Cannan

↩

Ed. 1 reads “its.” ↩

Below, here. ↩

This argument seems to be modelled closely on Cantillon, Essai, pp. 23, 24, but probably also owes something to Mandeville, Fable of the Bees, pt. ii, dialogue vi, vol. ii, p. 423. Cp. Lectures, pp. 173⁠–⁠175. ↩

The “ought” is equivalent to “it is reasonable they should be” in the previous paragraph, and to “must” in “must not only maintain him while he is idle” on p. 105. Cp. “doivent” in Cantillon, Essai, p. 24: “Ceux donc qui emploient des artisans ou gens de métier, doivent nécessairement payer leur travail plus haut que celui d’un laboureur ou maneuver.” The meaning need not be that it is ethically right that a person on whose education much has been spent should receive a large reward, but only that it is economically desirable, since otherwise there would be a deficiency of such persons. ↩

The treatment of this head would have been clearer if it had begun with a distinction between “day-wages” (mentioned lower down on the page) and annual earnings. The first paragraph of the argument claims that annual earnings as well as day-wages will be higher in the inconstant employment so as to counterbalance the disadvantage or repulsive force of having “anxious and desponding moments.” In the subsequent paragraphs, however, this claim is lost sight of, and the discussion proceeds as if the thesis was that annual earnings are equal though day-wages may be unequal. ↩

Below, here through here. ↩

Misprinted “effect” in ed. 5. ↩

That “stock” consists of actual objects seems to be overlooked here. The constancy with which such objects can be employed is various: the constancy with which the hearse of a village is employed depends on the number of deaths, which may be said to be “the trade,” and is certainly not “the trader.” There is no difference of profits corresponding to differences of day-wages due to unequal constancy of employment, for the simple reason that “profits” are calculated by their amount per annum, but the rural undertaker, liable to long interruption of business in healthy seasons, may just as well as the bricklayer be supposed to receive “some compensation for those anxious and desponding moments which the thought of so precarious a situation must sometimes occasion.” ↩

The argument foreshadowed in the introductory paragraphs of the chapter requires an allegation that it is a disadvantage to a person to have trust reposed in him, but no such allegation is made. Cantillon, Essai, p. 27, says: “lorsqu’il faut de la capacité et de la confiance, on paie encore le travail plus cher, comme aux jouailliers, teneurs de compte, caissiers, et autres.” Hume, History, ed. of 1773, vol. viii, p. 323, says: “It is a familiar rule in all business that every man should be paid in proportion to the trust reposed in him and the power which he enjoys.” ↩

But some trades, e.g., that of a banker, may be necessarily confined to persons of more than average trustworthiness, and this may raise the rate of profit above the ordinary level if such persons are not sufficiently plentiful. ↩

The argument under this head, which is often misunderstood, is that pecuniary wages are (on the average, setting great gains against small ones) less in trades where there are high prizes and many blanks. The remote possibility of obtaining one of the high prizes is one of the circumstances which “in the imaginations of men make up for a small pecuniary gain” (p. 101). Cantillon, Essai, p. 24, is not so subtle, merely making remuneration proportionate to risk. ↩

Lectures, p. 175. ↩

Eds. 1⁠–⁠4 read “are.” ↩

Ed. 1 reads “of it.” ↩

Eds. 4 and 5 read “their,” doubtless a misprint. ↩

The fact is overlooked that the numerous bankruptcies may be counterbalanced by the instances of great gain. Below, on p. 127, the converse mistake is made of comparing great successes and leaving out of account great failures. ↩

Above, here. ↩

Doubtless Kirkcaldy was in Smith’s mind. ↩

Above, here. ↩

Above, here. ↩

The illustration has already been used above, here. ↩

Under 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 5, § 18. ↩

8 Eliz., c. 11, § 8; 1 Jac. I,