group labor
demand and the group wage."[20] Or in simpler terms, that the community
will want a relatively fixed amount of the product which the group
helps to produce. And thus if the group reduces the time needed to make
that product, it will not benefit and may even be harmed, because the
services of some of its members will be no longer needed. And, on the
other hand, that the members of the group will not be harmed by keeping
the products of its labor scarce and high.

This line of reasoning, as held by some trade unionists, is valid on
occasion, from the point of view of particular groups of
workmen--especially during short periods. It is a fact that in many
cases workmen employed in particular industries or occupations, may not
be benefited and may even be injured by a display of extra effort or by
the adoption of a new and more efficient method of production. The
benefit of that extra effort or new method may not go _directly_ and
_immediately_ to the group which makes the effort or utilizes the new
method--it may not go to that group at all except in so far as they may
be consumers of their own product.

The question of an adequate supply of new houses is at present a vexed
one and is likely to remain so for some years. Therefore it makes a good
illustration of the difficulties involved in the question under
discussion. Suppose it were possible for all the labor employed in the
construction of houses to increase their effort and accomplish, let us
say, a third again as much as at present. Would that increase of effort
repay these workmen--would they receive higher wages? It is not a
matter that can be argued with certainty. The expense of construction
would fall rapidly, unless combination among the firms supplying
building materials or among building contractors prevented such a fall.
In the event that the cost of construction fell, there can be little
doubt that more construction would be undertaken. Would the increased
demand for construction lead immediately to an increase in demand for
building labor sufficiently great to give employment to workmen who
would not be needed on the old construction because of the increase in
individual output? Would it be so great as to mean a more than
proportionate increase in demand for building labor and a consequent
rise in wages? Would its effect be felt immediately or only after the
passage of some months, during which a number of the building laborers
would be with