DIFFERENCES IN LABOR COSTS 169 
doubt, in a strictly accurate accounting, the machinery employed 
should also be reckoned in terms of labor. That 1s, there should 
be reckoned, in addition to the labor currently applied by the 
workers of the year, some part of the labor given in previous years 
to making the machinery — so large a part as corresponds to the 
depreciation of the machinery during this one year. Thus revised, 
the figures would show not quite so great a superiority in effective- 
ness for the United States. None the less a marked superiority 
would remain. And the explanation of that superiority, it is to be 
observed, is the very fact that more horsepower, more machinery 
was used. In the language of everyday life, it was the greater use 
of power and machinery that most contributed to making American 
labor effective and productive. In the language of economic 
theory, it was the use of previous or ancillary labor, given to 
making the machines, which — combined with the necessary 
waiting — served toward making all the labor more effective. 
The reader will bear in mind that in this chapter we are con- 
cerned solely with the fact of differences in physical output. The 
causes of the differences are another matter, to which attention will 
be directed in the next ensuing chapter. But certain other figures, 
which have at least a possible bearing on the causes (the explana- 
tion) of the differences, may be of interest. It appeared that for 
each ton of pig iron produced there were used in Great Britain 
2.48 tons of ore and cinder (lime-stone); in the United States, 
1.96 tons. In this regard, the effectiveness of labor was some- 
what greater, tho not strikingly greater in the United States. The 
advantage was presumably due to a simple physical cause, the 
greater richness of the American ore; and not to any human cause, 
such as greater use of power and machinery, or more effective 
exertions by the workmen. As regards coal consumption, there 
was a similar difference. For each ton of pig iron produced, 2.09 
tons of coal were used in Great Britain, 1.74 in the United States. 
Here also the main explanation is probably to be found in the 
better quality of the American coal used in the blast-furnaces. 
[ know of no evidence to indicate that there was better handling 
or utilization of the coal.