30。　〃Elements〃；　Bk。　vi。；　Ch。　ii；　sect。　2；　and　corresponding　place　in　〃Principles。〃
  31。　〃Elements〃；　Bk。　vi。；　Ch。　v；　sect。　4；　and　corresponding　place　in　〃Principles〃。
  32。　See　above；　p。　24。
  33。　In　a　paper；　replying　to　Dietzel；　on　〃Wert；　Kosten　und　Grenznutzen〃；　in　Conrad's　Jahrbucher；　third　series；　book　iii。　p。　332。
  34。　The　change　of　occupation　is　not　always　brough　about　by　individuals　abandoning　the　occupations　in　which　they　are　engaged。　When　in　any　branch　of　employment　the　decrease　from　death；　etc。；　is　not　offset　by　the　number　entering　the　same；　we　haave　a　change　of　occupation。　Those　who　make　up　the　difference　have　gone　into　other　lines。　Though　operating　more　slowly；　the　effect　　of　this　is　the　same　as　if　individuals　made　a　direct　change。
  35。　Professor　Marshall　has　very　correctly　remarked　that　the　use　of　the　term　normal　is　more　of　less　arbitrary。　A　price　which　we　would　call　normal；　when　we　have　in　mind　a　period　of　cetain　length；　we　would　no　call　normal　when　considering　a　longer　period　（〃Principles〃；　Bk。　vii；　ch。　vi。；　sect。　4）　Otherwise　I　would　certainly　insist　that　the　real　law　of　cost　has　to　do　with　no　longer　period　than　is　sufficient　to　allow　the　adjustment　of　the　price　of　the　ware　to　the　equalized　position　of　wages　（and　interest）；　the　wider　adjustment　of　the　wages　of　labor　to　the　cost　of　maintaining　the　laborer；　which　under　certain　circumstances　might　require　a　still　longer　period　of　time；　is　an　entirely　different　problem。　So　far　as　this　can　be　further　maintained　as　a　general　law；　it　is　in　no　sense　an　effect　of　the　real　law　of　cost；　but　should　be　regarded　as　the　effect　of　another　law　　a　law　which　has　no　actual　connection　with　the　real　law　of　cost。　It　depends　upon　the　action　of　quite　different　forces　and　in　its　result　has　but　an　external　or　non…essential　similarity；　which　has　led　to　the　unqualified　evil　of　confounding　the　two　laws。　The　impelling　motive　of　that　law　of　cost；　which　really　influences　the　price　of　wares；　is　usually　a　shrewd　estimating　of　economic　conditions；　the　striving　for　the　greatest　possible　utility　and　the　avoidance　of　harm。　The　motive　of　a　pretended　iron　law　of　wages　is　on　the　one　side　the　irrestibleness　of　sexual　desire；　and　on　the　other　the　great　mortality　which　results　from　insufficient　food。　But　the　effects　of　such　natural　forces　can　no　more　be　credited　to　the　vulgar　economical　law　of　cost　than　the　aggregation　of　a　great　number　of　men　in　large　cities　can　be　credited　to　the　law　of　gravitation；　which　of　course；　because　of　a　similar　play　upon　external　analogies；　has　already　been　maintained　by　Carey。
  36。　I　would　not　fall　to　mention　that　the　position　of　wages　which　corresponds　to　or　equals　the　〃net　product　of　the　last　employed　laborer〃　is；　according　to　Professor　Marshall's　view；　in　no　sense　a　temporary　market　price；　but　a　sort　of　〃long　period　price；〃　which　requires　for　its　development　a　more　or　less　prolonged　leveling　process。　It　is　a　sor　of　centre　of　gravity　for　the　oscillations　of　the　supply　and　demand　of　labor。
  37。　In　this　attempt　Wieser　has　taken　a　prominent　part。　Compare　his　〃Ursprung　und　Hauptgesetze　des　Wirtschaftlichen　Wertes〃；　1884；　page　139；　and　〃Der　naturliche　Wert〃；　1889；　page　164。　Compare　also　the　excellent　resume　by　Smart；　in　the　editor's　preface　to　the　English　edition　of　the　last　named　work。　London；　1893；　p。　xix。
  38。　Professor　Marshall；　in　his　example　of　the　marginal　shepherd；　has　made　a　very　useful　application　of　this　concept　of　the　last　employed　labor；　though　in　a　somewhat　different　direction。　The　increase　of　product　which　results；when；　without　increasing　the　capital；　we　employ　an　additional　laborer；　he　conceives　to　be　the　answer　to　the　question。　How　much　of　the　total　product　may　be　regarded　as　the　product　of　labor；　as　opposed　to　product　of　capital？　Professor　Marshall　also　allows　the　last　employed　laborer　to　play　a　part　in　the　question　of　the　relation　between　the　laborer　and　the　capitalist；　or　in　the　queston　of　the　division　of　the　price　of　their　products；　I；　on　the　other　hand；　do　not　allow　the　last　employed　laborer　to　play　any　part　in　the　question　of　the　relation　between　laborer　and　consumer；　or　in　the　question　of　the　determination　of　the　height　of　the　price　of　the　product。　Nevertheless；　I　believe　there　is　no　material　difference　in　our　positions。　The　truth　is；　that　the　〃last　employed　laborer〃　in　both　cases　plays　the　role　ascribed　to　him。　But　since　I　have　expressly　excluded　all　factors　of　production　except　labor　（see　above　page）；　there　was　no　occasion　for　me　to　speak　further　of　the　division　of　the　product　between　the　laborer　and　the　capitalist。　In　my　book　on　〃Capital：　I　have　given　attention　to　this　question。　In　our　present　discussion；　we　would　not　insist　upon　every　point　involved　in　that　abstraction。　（See　page　11。）
  39。　I　beg　the　reader　not　to　forget　that　in　this　investigation　we　ignore　all　factors　of　production　except　labor；　especially　the　so…called　abstinence。　If　we　did　not　do　so；　we　would　somewhat　complicate　our　example。　Besides　the　cost　of　labor；　we　would　have　to　take　account　of　the　cost　of　abstinence；　must　then　subtract　this　latter　from　the　market　price。　Then　all　conclusions；　which　we　have　here　developed　for　the　relation　between　the　total　market　price　of　the　product　to　the　wages　of　labor；　would　have　to　be　developed；　for　the　relation　of　the　market　price　of　the　product；　diminished　by　the　other　costs　of　production　to　the　wages　of　labor。
  40。　The　fact　that　there　are　always　a　number　of　laborers　not　of　employment　tells　in　no　way　against　my　contention；　it　is　a　result；　not　of　an　excess　of　labor　force；　but　of　those　never…failing　disturbances　of　the　organization　of　the　entire；　yet　insufficient；　supply　of　the　labour　force。
  41。　For　the　sake　of　the　critical　reader　I　would　here　remark　that　I　am　well　aware　that　if　we　assume　an　increase　in　the　labor　forces　we　cannot　at　the　same　time　assume　that　the　other　conditions　remain　entirely　unchanged。　The　increase　in　product　which　results　from　an　increase　in　the　number　of　laborers　will　also　bring　with　it　an　increase　in　the　purchasing　power　or　in　the　demand。　But　if；　as　in　the　text；　we　assume　that　with　an　unchanged　condition　of　capital　and　land；　the　labor　alone　is　increased；　the　increase　in　the　demand　for　labor　and　the　products　of　labor　would　not　be　strong　enough　to　completely　compensate　the　increase　in　the　supply　of　labor；　for　the　increase　in　product　thus　obtained　cannot　be　wholly　applied　to　the　indemnification　of　labor；　some　fractional　part　of　it　must　be　given　as　tribute　to　the　other　co…operating　factors　in　production；　Capital　and　Land；　for　these　factors　have；　under　our　supposition；　become　relatively　scarcer　than　the　factor；　Labor；　and　so　are　in　a　position　to　insist　on　the　payment　of　this　tribute。　It　results　from　this；　that　this　increased　product　of　labor　can　no　longer　be　taken　up　by　the　stratum　of　demand；　which　can　pay　eighty　cents；　but　must　find　its　market　in　a　deeper；though　it　may　be　only　a　little　deeper；　stratum　of　the　demand。　I　would　also　remark；　that　the　question　touched　upon　in　this　note　is　a　most　difficult　and　complicated　one；　　it　contains；　perhaps；　the　most　difficult　part　of　the　difficult　theory　of　wages；　　and　that　I　do　not　for　a　moment　think　that　I　have　exhausted　the　subject　with　these　rather　brief；　and　I　fear　somewhat　obscure　remarks。　I　would　only　call　attention　to　the　fact　that　I　have　not　lost　sight　of　a　difficulty；　the　complete　exposition　of　which　would　lead　us　too　far　afield。
  42。　See　above　page　24。
  43。　See　above　page　15。
  44。　〃Cost　and　Expense；〃　page　67。　Annals；　May；　1893。
  45。　Compare　for　example　B。　Dietzel's　writings；　especially　the　paragraphs　cited　in　my　answer　（Conrad's　Jahrbucher）；　third　series；　book　iii；　page　327。　See　also　Professor　Edgeworth　in　the　Economic　Journal；　June；　1892；　pages　234；　237。
  46。　See　above　page　29。