number　of　men　who　are　willing　to　do　the　work。　I　want　a　horseshoe
  for　my　horse。　Twenty　smiths；　or　twenty　thousand　smiths；　may　be
  ready　to　forge　it；　their　number　does　not　in　one　atom's　weight
  affect　the　question　of　the　equitable　payment　of　the　one　who　does
  forge　it。　It　costs　him　a　quarter　of　an　hour　of　his　life；　and　so
  much　skill　and　strength　of　arm　to　make　that　horseshoe　for　me。
  Then　at　some　future　time　I　am　bound　in　equity　to　give　a　quarter
  of　an　hour；　and　some　minutes　more；　of　my　life　（or　of　some　other
  person's　at　my　disposal）；　and　also　as　much　strength　of　arm　and
  skill；　and　a　little　more；　in　making　or　doing　what　the　smith　may
  have　need　of。
  Such　being　the　abstract　theory　of　just　remunerative　payment；
  its　application　is　practically　modified　by　the　fact　that　the
  order　for　labour；　given　in　payment；　is　general；　while　labour
  received　is　special。　The　current　coin　or　document　is　practically
  an　order　on　the　nation　for　so　much　work　of　any　kind；　and　this
  universal　applicability　to　immediate　need　renders　it　so　much　more
  valuable　than　special　labour　can　be；　that　an　order　for　a　less
  quantity　of　this　general　toil　will　always　be　accepted　as　a　just
  equivalent　for　a　greater　quantity　of　special　toil。　Any　given
  craftsman　will　always　be　willing　to　give　an　hour　of　his　own　work
  in　order　to　receive　command　over　half…an…hour；　or　even　much　less；
  of　national　work。　This　source　of　uncertainty；　together。　with　the
  difficulty　of　determining　the　monetary　value　of　skill；（10*）
  renders　the　ascertainment　（even　approximate）　of　the　proper　wages
  of　any　given　labour　in　terms　of　a　currency　matter　of　considerable
  complexity。　But　they　do　not　affect　the　principle　of　exchange。　The
  worth　of　the　work　may　not　be　easily　known；　but　it　has　a　worth；
  just　as　fixed　and　real　as　the　specific　gravity　of　a　substance；
  though　such　specific　gravity　may　not　be　easily　ascertainable　when
  the　substance　is　united　with　many　others。　Nor　is　there　so　much
  difficulty　or　chance　in　determining　it　as　in　determining　the
  ordinary　maxima　and　minima　of　vulgar　political　economy。　There　are
  few　bargains　in　which　the　buyer　can　ascertain　with　anything　like
  precision　that　the　seller　would　have　taken　no　less；　　or　the
  seller　acquire　more　than　a　comfortable　faith　that　the　purchaser
  would　have　given　no　more。　This　impossibility　of　precise　knowledge
  prevents　neither　from　striving　to　attain　the　desired　point　of
  greatest　vexation　and　injury　to　the　other；　nor　from　accepting　it
  for　a　scientific　principle　that　he　is　to　buy　for　the　least　and
  sell　for　the　most　possible；　though　what　the　real　least　or　most
  may　be　he　cannot　tell。　In　like　manner；　a　just　person　lays　it　down
  for　a　scientific　principle　that　he　is　to　pay　a　just　price；　and；
  without　being　able　precisely　to　ascertain　the　limits　of　such　a
  price；　will　nevertheless　strive　to　attain　the　closest　possible
  approximation　to　them。　A　practically　serviceable　approximation　he
  can　obtain。　It　is　easier　to　determine　scientifically　what　a　man
  ought　to　have　for　his　work；　than　what　his　necessities　will　compel
  him　to　take　for　it。　His　necessities　can　only　be　ascertained　by
  empirical；　but　his　due　by　analytical；　investigation。　In　the　one
  case；　you　try　your　answer　to　the　sum　like　a　puzzled　schoolboy
  till　you　find　one　that　fits；　in　the　other；　you　bring　out　your
  result　within　certain　limits；　by　process　of　calculation。
  Supposing；　then；　the　just　wages　of　any　quantity　of　given
  labour　to　have　been　ascertained；　let　us　examine　the　first　results
  of　just　and　unjust　payment；　when　in　favour　of　the　purchaser　or
  employer；　i。e。　when　two　men　are　ready　to　do　the　work；　and　only
  one　wants　to　have　it　done。
  The　unjust　purchaser　forces　the　two　to　bid　against　each　other
  till　he　has　reduced　their　demand　to　its　lowest　terms。　Let　us
  assume　that　the　lowest　bidder　offers　to　do　the　work　at　half　its
  just　price。
  The　purchaser　employs　him；　and　does　not　employ　the　other。　The
  first　or　apparent　result　is；　therefore；　that　one　of　the　two　men
  is　left　out　of　employ；　or　to　starvation；　just　as　definitely　as　by
  the　just　procedure　of　giving　fair　price　to　the　best　workman。　The
  various　writers　who　endeavoured　to　invalidate　the　positions　of　my
  first　paper　never　saw　this；　and　assumed　that　the　unjust　hirer
  employed　both。　He　employs　both　no　more　than　the　just　hirer。　The
  only　difference　（in　the　outset；　is　that　the　just　man　pays
  sufficiently；　the　unjust　man　insufficiently；　for　the　labour　of
  the　single　person　employed。
  I　say；　〃in　the　outset；〃　for　this　first　or　apparent；
  difference　is　not　the　actual　difference。　By　the　unjust　procedure；
  half　the　proper　price　of　the　work　is　left　in　the　hands　of　the
  employer。　This　enables　him　to　hire　another　man　at　the　same　unjust
  rate；　on　some　other　kind　of　work；　and　the　final　result　is　that　he
  has　two　men　working　for　him　at　half　price；　and　two　are　out　of
  employ。
  By　the　just　procedure；　the　whole　price　of　the　first　piece　of
  work　goes　in　the　hands　of　the　man　who　does　it。　No　surplus　being
  left　in　the　employer's　hands；　he　cannot　hire　another　man　for
  another　piece　of　labour。　But　by　precisely　so　much　as　his　power　is
  diminished；　the　hired　workman's　power　is　increased；　that　is　to
  say；　by　the　additional　half　of　the　price　he　has　received；　which
  additional　half　he　has　the　power　of　using　to　employ　another　man
  in　his　service。　I　will　suppose；　for　the　moment；　the　least
  favourable；　though　quite　probable；　case　　that；　though　justly
  treated　himself；　he　yet　will　act　unjustly　to　his　subordinate；　and
  hire　at　half…price；　if　he　can。　The　final　result　will　then　be；
  that　one　man　works　for　the　employer；　at　just　price；　one　for　the
  workman；　at　half…price；　and　two；　as　in　the　first　case；　are　still
  out　of　employ。　These　two；　as　I　said　before；　are　out　of　employ　in
  both　cases。　The　difference　between　the　just　and　unjust　procedure
  does　not　lie　in　the　number　of　men　hired；　but　in　the　price　paid　to
  them；　and　the　persons　by　whom　it　is　paid。　The　essential
  difference；　that　which　I　want　the　reader　to　see　clearly；　is；　that
  in　the　unjust　case；　two　men　work　for　one；　the　first　hirer。　In　the
  just　case；　one　man　works　for　the　first　hirer；　one　for　the　person
  hired；　and　so　on；　down　or　up　through　the　various　grades　of
  service；　the　influence　being　carried　forward　by　justice；　and
  arrested　by　injustice。　The　universal　and　constant　action　of
  justice　in　this　matter　is　therefore　to　diminish　the　power　oF
  wealth；　in　the　hands　of　one　individual；　over　masses　of　men；　and
  to　distribute　it　through　a　chain　of　men。　The　actual　power　exerted
  by　the　wealth　is　the　same　in　both　cases；　but　by　injustice　it　is
  put　all　into　one　man's　hands；　so　that　he　directs　at　once　and　with
  equal　force　the　labour　of　a　circle　of　men　about　him；　by　the　just
  procedure；　he　is　permitted　to　touch　the　nearest　only；　through
  whom；　with　diminished　force；　modified　by　new　minds；　the　energy　of
  the　wealth　passes　on　to　others；　and　so　till　it　exhausts　itself。
  The　immediate　operation　of　justice　in　this　respect　is
  therefore　to　diminish　the　power　of　wealth；　first　in　acquisition
  of　luxury；　and；　secondly；　in　exercise　of　moral　influence。　The
  employer　cannot　concentrate　so　multitudinous　labour　on　his　own
  interests；　nor　can　he　subdue　so　multitudinous　mind　to　his　own
  will。　But　the　secondary　operation　of　justice　is　not　less
  important。　The　insufficient　payment　of　the　group　of　men　working
  for　one；　places　each　under　a　maximum　of　difficulty　in　rising
  above　his　position。　The　tendency　of　the　system　is　to　check
  advancement。　But　the　sufficient　or　just　payment；　distributed
  through　a　descending　series　oF　offices　or　grades　or　labour；（11*）
  gives　each　subordinated　person　fair　and　sufficient　means　of
  rising　in　the　social　scale；　if　he　chooses　to　use　them；　and　thus
  not　only　diminishes　the　immediate　power　of　wealth；　but　removes
  the　worst　disabilities　of　poverty。
  It　is　on　this　vital　problem　that　the　entire　destiny　of　the
  labourer　is　ultimately　dependent。　Many　minor　interests　may
  sometimes　appear　to　interfere　with　it；　but　all　branch　from　it。
  For　instance；　considerable　agitation　is　often　caused　in　the　minds
  of　the　lower　classes　when　they　discover　the　share　which　they
  nominally；　and　to　all　appearance；　actually；　pay　out　of　their
  wages　in　taxation　（I　believe　thirty…five　or　forty　per　cent）。　This
  sounds　very　grievous；　but　in　reality　the　labourer　does　not　pay
  it；　but　his　employer。　If　the　workman　had　not　to　pay　it；　his　wages
  would　be　less　by　just　that　sum：　competition　would　still　reduce
  them　to