ndustry would be in a like
situation. But at once there must occur changes of consumers'
choices in a great number of ways. If there are one fifth fewer goods
evidently at least one fifth of the consumers must go without. This
would largely be the wage workers. The things of which wage labor
makes up a large part of the costs will rise in price relative to
the things of which self-employed labor and of which materials
and machinery make up a relatively larger part. This must compel a
reduction of the demand for the products of wage labor relative
to other things, and be reflected to labor in a lower wage. This
reduction would not necessarily be just in proportion to the reduced
output (that is, say, 20 per cent if from 10 to 8 hours, or 11 per
cent, if from 9 to 8 hours). It might even be more, but probably would
be somewhat less. In any case, both the money wages and the real wages
of laborers, either in the particular trade or generally, must be
reduced by a general reduction of hours that results in a decreased
output. In such cases, even when the workmen by a strike or general
movement secured the same wage scale for a day of fewer hours (a
higher wage per hour), they would be unable to hold it excepting where
they had monopolistic control of the trade.

In a period of rising prices due to an increasing supply of gold, the
readjustment of wages (per hour) away from an artificially high level
down to a competitive rate goes steadily on. Even when money wages
remain the same their purchasing power declines at such times, and
this serves soon to bring the high money wages into accord with the
lower value of the services.[4]

Sec. 3. #Fewer hours and greater efficiency.# Quite contrary to the
foregoing view is the claim that in the shorter day the rate of work
is so increased that the output is at least as large as in the longer
day, or even larger. A faster working pace is possible with a shorter
day, particularly in those operations calling for physical or mental
dexterity. This view is less attractive to the workers than the
preceding one, but is more acceptable to the employers and to the
public. The change undoubtedly has resulted in many cases in the
manner indicated, and could be made to result so in many other cases
by applying the methods of scientific management. But it is a change
which cannot be repeated indefinitely and under all conditions with
like favorable results. Whether in any particular case it ca