Subsistence theory of wage



Subsistence theory of wage

 

The subsistence theory of wage is also known as “iron law” of wage. It was so named by physiocrats like Lassalle, a German economist and Quesnay, a member of school of economists and developed by David Ricardo. The theory of population, expounded by Malthus was also based on this “iron law”. According to this theory, wages tend to remain at the subsistence level. Wages paid to workers is just sufficient to fulfill their basic needs. Workers don’t have surplus income.  If wages rises above this level, this leads to an increase in the population because the increased prosperity of workers will encourage the workers to marry sooner and increase population. This will increase labor supply. The increased competition among workers for employment causes wages to fall again to the subsistence level. Likewise, if the wages fall below the subsistence level, there will be fewer wages and no prosperity. People will have less interest in marriage. Fewer children are born. This will reduce the supply of labor. The competition for employment is reduced and wages tend to rise to the subsistence level. Finally, the wages remain at the subsistence level. The French School of economists, as the physiocrats, looked upon this theory of wages as a natural law. Quesnay had said, “Wages are fixed and reduced to the lowest level by the extreme competition of the workers“.

 

 

Criticisms

  1. Ignores the demand side of labor:
    This theory is one-sided. It explains the wages from the supply side only. It completely ignored the demand for labor. But if a rise in wages leads to an increase in population, the larger supply of labor may be balanced by an increase in the demand for labor.
  2. No direct relationship between wage level and population:
    According to this theory, population increase if the workers are paid above the subsistence level but empirical evidences show the decrease in population or its rater of growth in developed nations even if there is increase in wage level. People spend money on education, family planning, skill development too.
  3. Ignores trade unions:
    This theory has ignored trade unions through which the workers make the collective bargaining for their benefits.
  4. Not flexible wage level
    Wages of all workers is at the subsistence level and is not flexible towards up and down. However, wages can differ from occupation to occupation and from place to place.
  5. Exploitative
    There is tendency toward exploitation in this theory. Because, according to the theory wages must be equal to the subsistence level, and-not for comforts and luxuries.