John Stuart Mill? Henry George? H. L. Mencken? C. Palfrey? J. E. Jennings? Adam Coaldigger? Anonymous?
Question for Quote Investigator: Recent progress in artificial intelligence and robotics has led some to believe that work hours will shrink and leisure will grow. However, history suggests a different possibility.
Brilliant inventors have created a series of remarkable labor-saving devices, yet somehow people seem to be working harder than ever. This notion has been summarized with a trenchant adage:
Labor-saving machinery doesn’t really save labor.
This saying has been attributed to English philosopher John Stuart Mill, U.S. political economist Henry George, and U.S. essayist H. L. Mencken.
This counter-intuitive observation has inspired several possible explanations including the following: Machines allow more goods and services to be produced at lower prices, but this causes the needs and desires of people to grow and expand; hence, working hours have not decreased in several decades.
Would you please explore the provenance of this saying?
Reply from Quote Investigator: This saying can be expressed in many ways; hence, it is difficult to trace. John Stuart Mill articulated the central idea in 1848 although he employed a different phrasing. Here is an overview with dates and attributions:
1848: It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being (John Stuart Mill)
1869: All the contrivances of science and art for economy of labor do not save labor, but stimulate production (C. Palfrey)
1885: All the labor-saving machinery that has hitherto been invented has not lessened the toil of a single human being (Attributed to John Stuart Mill by Henry George)
1900: No labor-saving invention has been used to save labor, but to increase it (J. E. Jennings)
1905: Labor-saving devices don’t save labor. They increase it (Anonymous)
1929: Labor-saving devices don’t save labor which is proven by the fact that men never worked as many days per annum or worked as feverishly as they have since the advent of the labor-saving devices (Adam Coaldigger)
1935: The plain fact is that labor-saving machinery doesn’t save labor at all (Howard Vincent O’Brien)
1962: Labor-saving machinery had in fact not saved any labor (Attributed to John Stuart Mill by August Heckscher)
1989: The fact is that a lot of labour-saving devices don’t really save labour (Sue Birchmore)
2008: No labor-saving device has ever saved a minute of labor! (Attributed to H. L. Mencken)
Below are details for selected citations in chronological order.
In 1848 John Stuart Mill published “Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy” which contained the following passage. Boldface added to excepts by QI:1
Hitherto it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being. They have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make large fortunes. They have increased the comforts of the middle classes. But they have not yet begun to effect those great changes in human destiny, which it is in their nature and in their futurity to accomplish.
In 1869 “The Monthly Religious Magazine” published a piece titled “The Religion of Work and Business” by C. Palfrey which included the following passage:2
Never was the world so busy as it is to-day, amidst the high civilization it has reached. All the contrivances of science and art for economy of labor do not save labor, but stimulate production. The poor laborer has hitherto experienced the benefit of them, not in increased leisure, but in the abundance and cheapness of many comforts, which, a few generations ago, were beyond the reach of all but the most wealthy.
In 1885 political economist Henry George testified at a U.S. Senate hearing. George attributed a version of the saying to John Stuart Mill:3
I think that whoever will thoroughly examine the facts will come to the conclusion that John Stuart Mill is right when he says that “all the labor-saving machinery that has hitherto been invented has not lessened the toil of a single human being.” While, on the other hand, by permitting and requiring this great subdivision of labor and dispensing to a great extent with skill on the part of the laborer, it has reduced him to a far more dependent condition than that which he occupied before.
In 1900 “The Typographical Journal” published a piece by J. E. Jennings which included an instance of the saying:4
As was remarked recently in the JOURNAL the invention of labor-saving contrivances, or what are usually termed such, inevitably leads to an increased demand for labor, though other labor was most assuredly displaced for a time. “No labor-saving invention has been used to save labor, but to increase it.”
Within the past fifteen years the utilization of the machine in printing has indeed played a very important part in lightening the labors of mankind—so far as the 10,000 or 12,000 men displaced are concerned. On the other hand, we must remember that our newspapers and other ephemeral publications have been largely increased in size, necessitating the employment of an increased number of machine hands, not to speak of the beneficial effect on the allied industries.
In 1905 “The Daily Evening Star” of Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada printed an editorial which included a version of the saying:5
We may also observe that the ordinary business man is busier with stenographers, type writers and automatic copying machines than his ancestor was with the old-fashioned methods of writing and copying by hand.
All of which goes to prove that labor saving devices don’t save labor. They increase it. In other words, the easier you can do work the more you will do.
In 1929 “The Oklahoma Weekly Leader” printed a piece by the pseudonymous Adam Coaldigger which contained the following passage:6
In other words, labor-saving devices don’t save labor which is proven by the fact that men never worked as many days per annum or worked as feverishly as they have since the advent of the labor-saving devices.
Besides, they said, the invention of labor-saving devices progresses at such a furious pace that no sooner is a labor-saving device or a series of labor-saving devices installed than the outfit must be junked to make room for a still greater labor-saving device. Which means, if the sunshine peddlers are right, that our boasted machine civilization is working mostly for the junk yards.
In 1935 a newspaper in Beamsville, Ontario, Canada reprinted a piece by Howard Vincent O’Brien from the “Chicago Daily News” which contained a version of the saying:7
Therein, perhaps, lies the answer to those who fear that labor-saving machinery will be the death of us. The plain fact is that labor-saving machinery doesn’t save labor at all. It merely transfers men who formerly toiled at the slow creation of goods to working at the care of machines that the machines have produced.
In 1962 the periodical “Museum News” of Washington D.C. printed a speech by August Heckscher which attributed a version of the saying to John Stuart Mill:8
Late in the Nineteenth Century, when the industrial revolution was already far advanced, John Stuart Mill astonished his contemporaries with the simple observation that labor-saving machinery had in fact not saved any labor. That was true then; to a large extent it has remained true.
As the capacity to produce has increased we have multiplied our wants, created hitherto unknown forms of consumer goods, and undertaken new tasks around the world. But sooner or later the machines are going to catch up with us. Then we shall have to ask what we shall do with the free time which falls to us in unprecedented quantities.
In 1989 Sue Birchmore published a piece in “New Scientist” magazine which contained a version of the saying:9
“Labour saving” devices don’t seem to have actually reduced the burden of housework; in fact, if all these findings of modern research are to be believed, the time Western women spend on housework has gone up over the years, not down.
It’s partly that standards have got tougher; a house that was tolerable in 1918 rates as a tip in 1989. I don’t think moving goalposts are the whole story, though. The fact is that a lot of labour-saving devices don’t really save labour.
In 2008 the book “Talking Taino: Caribbean Natural History from a Native Perspective” by William F. Keegan and Lisabeth A. Carlson attributed the saying to H. L. Mencken:10
Perhaps H. L. Mencken was right when he said that no laborsaving device has ever saved a minute of labor!
QI has not found this saying in the writings of Mencken who died in 1956.
In 2019, the statement from John Stuart Mill continued to circulate. For example, an opinion piece in an Allentown, Pennsylvania newspaper contained this passage:11
Machines have been replacing human workers literally since the invention of the wheel. John Stuart Mill even noticed at the height of the industrial revolution, “It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.”
In conclusion, the core idea was articulated by John Stuart Mill in 1848. In 1869 C. Palfrey presented the idea and suggested that production and consumption were stimulated by labor-saving devices. During subsequent decades, many people have employed this saying, and the phrasing has evolved.
Image Notes: Illustration of the Edison multipolar dynamo from the British Library at Unsplash. The image has been cropped and resized.
Acknowledgement: Great thanks to Doug Saunders whose inquiry led QI to formulate this question and perform this exploration.
- 1848, Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy by John Stuart Mill, Volume 2 of 2, Chapter 6: Of the Stationary State, Quote Page 317, Charles C. Little & James Brown, Boston, Massachusetts. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
- 1869 September, The Monthly Religious Magazine, Volume 42, Number 3, The Religion of Work and Business by C. Palfrey, Quote Page 170, Leonard C. Bowles, Boston, Massachusetts. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
- 1885, Report of the Committee of the Senate Upon the Relations Between Labor and Capital and Testimony Taken by the Committee, Relations Between Labor and Capital, (Henry George was interviewed by Wilkinson Call of Florida), Testimony of Henry George, Date: August 22, 1883, Start Page 466, Quote Page 469, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
- 1900 January 1, The Typographical Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, The Machine and the Printer by J. E. Jennings of Number Six, Start Page 1, Quote Page 1, Column 1 and 2, Official Paper of the International Typographical Union of North America, Indianapolis, Indiana. (Google Books Full View) link ↩︎
- 1905 September 15, The Daily Evening Star, Editorial with no byline, Editor: E. J. White, Quote Page 2, Column 1, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. (Newspapers_com) link ↩︎
- 1929 March 29, The Oklahoma Weekly Leader, Timely and Untimely Observations: Man-Eating Machines by Adam Coaldigger, Quote Page 3, Column 6, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (Newspapers_com) link ↩︎
- 1935 May 29, The Beamsville Express, This Is the Age of Service Man by Howard Vincent O’Brien (Chicago Daily News), Quote Page 7, Column 5, Beamsville, Ontario, Canada. (Newspapers_com) ↩︎
- 1962 September, Museum News: The Journal of the American Association of Museums, Volume 41, Number 1, Museums in a New Age, A Speech by August Heckscher (Special White House Consultant on the Arts, Presented at the Opening Session, 57th Annual Meeting of the Association), Start Page 22, Quote Page 28, American Association of Museums, Washington D.C. (Verified with scans) ↩︎
- 1989 December 23, New Scientist, So much for labour saving by Sue Birchmore, Start Page 83, Quote Page 83, Column 3, IPC Magazines Ltd., London, England. (Verified with scans) ↩︎
- 2008 Copyright, Talking Taino: Caribbean Natural History from a Native Perspective by William F. Keegan and Lisabeth A. Carlson, Chapter 11: The Chip-Chip Gatherers (2007), Quote Page 63, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. (Google Books Preview) ↩︎
- 2019 November 2, The Morning Call, Your View: Ignore Andrew Yang, automation is a good thing for our economy by Ignatios Draklellis, Quote Page 13, Column 6, Allentown, Pennsylvania. (Newspapers_com) ↩︎