Concluding Remarks
Walker states he has intended to stick entirely to matters of economics in this book, but recognizes that political and social sentiments often intrude into the topic of work and wages. This becomes rather a quagmire of irrational emotions that defy quantification or rational analysis: people merely feel that workers should be paid a certain amount.
He also acknowledges that in the early industrial era, the living conditions of workers has not been acceptable: people work long hours for a wage that is a pittance and in some cases is not sufficient for them to sustain themselves. Others who are well compensated manage their personal finances poorly. Whether a given salary is sufficient is blamed arbitrarily on the stinginess of the employer or the waste of the worker - which largely depends on the idiosyncrasies of a given incident.
He also notes a number of fallacies in circulation which he found it necessary to dismiss: the notion that there is a wage-fund based on capital availability rather than production needs, and that anyone has perfect knowledge of the price/quantity that customers will eventually demand. Subscription to these notions has lead to a number of misconceptions, and they must be dismissed.
In essence, the total amount of revenue available to pay the expenses of production and return a profit to those who supply labor and capital is unknown, but merely estimated with some risk. Ultimately, this amount will determine whether a given operation or industry is financially sustainable.
That is to say: wages, interest, and any other returns of a business must be paid from the difference between revenues and expenses - and if this is not so then the business will become destructive rather than productive of wealth. The returns on capital and labor, combined, cannot therefore be increased above this amount and must be negotiated against this total.
In regard to the apportioning of the available total between capital and labor, there must be sufficient return to capital in order to convince those who provide it to continue funding the operation. Should labor demand so much that the operation provides insufficient return, capital will flow elsewhere - in many instances, the manufacturing operation will be closed and moved to a more favorable location.
And so, when customers are unwilling to pay more for a product and capital is unwilling to accept less, then the wages of labor are restricted to the remainder. And if this amount is not appealing, then labor will move elsewhere - to opportunities that provide higher wages. And if there are no opportunities to earn a better wage, then it cannot be said that the demands of labor are reasonable.
This is an economic reality that is unavoidable, and it cannot yield to the arbitrary interests of labor or public sentiment about the fairness of their remuneration. The operation simply does not provide enough revenue to be sustainable if the demands of the customer, investor, and worker cannot all be satisfied.
He returns to the doctrine of "laissez faire" which maintains that every individual ought to be left alone to pursue his own interests. And ultimately, this bears out. No law that proposes to force a customer to pay more than he is willing for a good nor to make an investor place his funds in an operation that provides less of a return than he desires can be maintained in order to improve the income of workers without making an operation or an entire industry unsustainable.
What is seen, in practice, is that a little interference in the freedom of individuals in one place creates the necessity of a great deal of interference elsewhere, with statesmen applying more legislation to address the damage created by their original legislation. Aside of protecting the public (in their roles as customer, worker, and investor) against force or fraud, there has been no instance of economic policy that has had an altogether beneficial effect.
He also notes that there has in history been no instance of state interference in the markets, however well intended, that has not caused more destruction and misery than it has avoided or alleviated. "Legislation is always more or less unwise and administration always falls in some degree short of its intent." Ostensibly, the intent is to make minor adjustments to industry that are to the benefit of all involved - but inevitably, the result is to create an untenable situation, and to abolish industry, which is to the detriment of all involved.