Page:Karl Marx - Wage Labor and Capital - tr. J. L. Joynes (1900).pdf/40

 they had. For the same amount of money they received in exchange less bread, meat, etc.; and their wages had fallen, not because the value of silver had diminished, but because the value of the means of subsistence had increased.

Let us finally suppose that the money price of labor remains the same, while in consequence of the employment of new machinery, or on account of a good season, or for some similar reason, there is a fall in the price of all agricultural and manufactured goods. For the same amount of money the laborers can now buy more commodities of all kinds. Their wages have therefore risen, just because their money-value has not changed.

The money price of labor, the nominal amount of wages, does not therefore coincide with the real wages, that is, with the amount of commodities that may practically be obtained in exchange for the wages, Thus, if we speak of the rise and fall of wages, the money price of labor, or the nominal wage, is not the only thing which we must keep in view.

But neither the nominal wages, that is, the amount of money for which the laborer sells himself to the employer, nor yet the real wages, that is, the amount of commodities which he can buy for this money, exhaust the relations which are comprehended in the term of wages.

But wages are above all determined by their relation to the gain or profit of the capitalist. It is in this connection that we speak of relative wages.

The real wage expresses the price of labor in