HAND AND MACHINE LABOR
Hand and Machine Labor (Thirteenth Annual Report of the
Commissioner of Labor, 1898, Vols. I and II, Wash., 1899.105)
[A very interesting and original work, invaluable on the
question of hand and machine production. Quantity of working time, the number of operations and the number of
different workers in hand and machine labor, and also labor
costs are compared by article produced or work accomplished
(“unit”—altogether 672 units). In each unit the same data
are given separately for each operation. Unfortunately, the
data are excessively fragmented, and there is no attempt
to summarise, or to give any general numerical, even if
only approximate, conclusions.
cf. p. 93: the general conclusion on agriculture:
“The aggregates presented by these 27 units necessarily
vary very much with the crop produced, and the gains made
by the supplanting of primitive methods by modern ones are quite different in different instances. With the exception
noted in unit 22 there is a gain in each case, and in some
instances, as in units 3 and 26, it is very large, though of
course not comparable with those found in the manufacturing industries. An average deduced from the 27 units here
reported shows that one man with the improved machinery
in use to-day can cultivate and harvest nearly twice as large
a crop as was possible under the primitive method.”
(These 27 units—production of apple trees, wheat, cotton,
barley, berries, tobacco, potatoes, etc. In Volume One,
each unit is divided into operations.)

In general, the number of operations is much greater in
machine production (division of labour! e.g., boots and
shoes: 45-102 operations in hand production, and 84-173
in machine production), but in agriculture it may sometimes
(perhaps more often) be vice versa). Reason: the combination
of several operations in machine production. E.g, unit
27, wheat, 20 bushels (1 acre).
Hand method 8 operations machine ” —5 ” motive power hand:
ox and hand
Ia—breaking ground
Ib—sowing seed
Ic—pulverising topsoil and covering seed machine:
I—breaking ground, sowing and covering seed, and pulverising top-
N.B.
soil (gangplow, seeder, and harrow
—motive power: steam).
1597 pp.
See examples on separate sheet.* in the two volumes
Information on separate operations is an excellent illustration of the division of labour. A pity that no
effort is made to summarise for some of the “units”.
Another thing that should be done is to sum up the number
of operations (and % of operations) with motive power other
than hands.
There are no summaries on average ages of workers (and sex) under hand and machine labour.
No summaries on wages under hand and machine labour.
All this can (and should) be calculated by number of units and number of operations. Otherwise, there remains
nothing but examples, illustrations.
* See pp. 284-88.—Ed.
]

⋆

Some examples from the “Summary” (Vol. I) — units sampled, with quantity per unit:
— Apple trees: 10,000 (1 acre), 32 months from grafts
— Onions: 250 bush. (1 acre)
— Wheat: 20 bush. (1 acre)
— Boots: men’s cheap grade, 100 pairs
— Bread: 1-pound loaves, 1,000
— Wheels: carriage wheels, 1 set (4)
— Trousers: cottonade, 12 dozen pairs
— Cottonades (a grade of fabric): 500 yards
[The hand/machine comparison columns for these units were blank in the source scan. —Ed.]
Text (Vol. I) contains only explanatory notes for each unit separately, so that nothing is summarised.
(A very important thing for a detailed study of the division of labour in separate units, the role of machines
in separate operations, the importance of workers’ skills, and the English names of these skills. But all this
is rough and raw, a handbook, and no more.)
It is very important to point out that for an adequately
exact comparison of the level of technology in the various
systems of production there must be precisely a breakdown by operations. That is the only scientific
method. It would give such a great deal in application to
agriculture!
The same Report, as on the previous page—Vols. VI and VII deal with the cost of production. Two great volumes
give the most detailed figures on each of the hundreds of
enterprises studied for production costs, materials, wages,
etc., and then the cost of living with budgets, level of labour
productivity, etc. Unfortunately all of this is absolutely
raw stuff, and almost useless without processing (except
possibly for occasional references). Strangely enough, the
authors of these works make no attempt at all to summarise
or draw any general conclusions, however few!
“Machine Labor production by hand and machine methods” (Vol. I — general table):
[Statistical table — year of production, number of operations performed, number of workmen employed, time worked, and labor cost ($), compared hand vs. machine by unit. Column structure illegible in the source scan; figures omitted. —Ed.]

This is from Vol. I—General table, introduction and analysis.
In Vol. II, there is nothing but tables for each operation
in each unit. Here is a sampling of the table headings in
Vol. II: 1) operation number; 2) work done (description
of each operation); 3) machine, implement or tool used (in each operation separately); 4) motive power (hand,
foot, horse, ox, steam, electricity, etc.); 5) persons necessary on one machine; 6) employees at work on the unit—
number and sex (of the workers);—occupation (skill or shop);—age (of workers);—time worked;—pay of labour
(rate per— —)—labour cost (rate by time worked or by pieces in case of piece rates).
e.g. No. 41. Hand labour: 3 housewives (only female)
worked at odd hours, 50 years; no machines.
Machine production: mostly steam frames and machines.
Working 11 hours a day. Ages from 10 years (sic!) to 50
years. Both male and female.
Or No. 27 (wheat). Hand labour: hand, oxen, 4 labourers,
21-30 years. Plow, sickles, flails, shovels.
hand machine hand machine hand machine hour minutes hour
minutes hand machine

Machine production: gangplow, seeder, combined reaper and thresher. Steam and horse. 10 employees (all specialists: engineer, fireman, water hauler, separator man, header
tender, sack sewers, sack fillers, teamsters).
Let’s try to take the results for 27 units (agriculture):
Σ=7 acres of diverse crops
[Aggregate results for the 27 agricultural units (hand, 1829–1872 vs. machine, 1893–1896) — number of operations, number of workers, time worked, and labour cost. Figures unaligned/illegible in the source scan; omitted. The author’s summary of them follows. —Ed.]
Determining the number of different workers with the exception of No. 14 (onions),
hand—28, machine 675, we get:
hand—338 machine—764 subtracting also apple trees (No. 2),
hand—37, machine—125, and No. 19 (strawberries), hand—32, machine—156,
we get:
hand—269 machine—583, still more than double!
Of the 27 units only in one case (No. 22, tobacco) is the
time worked and labour cost higher for machine labour (199 and 353 hours; $5. 9 and 30.2). The author observes:
“Unit 22 is unique in that the total time at the later date
was nearly twice that at the earlier, a fact for which no
other explanation appears than that previously offered”
(p. 93); page 91: “The methods used at the two periods differ
so largely that no comparison can be made.”
Written in the autumn of 1904
First printed in the Fourth Russian edition
Printed from the original