<p>Adam Smiths writes, just above that sentence you referenced, that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for
their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number,
naturally tends to widen and extend those limits.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Just below it, Smith writes</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of
propagation in all the different countries of the world, in North
America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive
in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether
stationary in the last.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, <code>The wealth of Nations</code> was written in 1776, a time when America grew rapidly. For example, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> states that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From 1700 to 1774 the output of the thirteen colonies increased
12-fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of
Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was
responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the
British American colonies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given all that, I think Adam Smith's view was the exact opposite of your interpretation.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T14:27:12.647Z
Are you saying demand quickens the population? Providing for children is a cost not a cause.
Nick Carducci for Carface Bank
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T14:55:43.540Z
@Nick Carducci, where exactly do you think children are a cost not a cause matters here, or is discussed so far?
Alex
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T15:04:19.953Z
AKdemy You said a **rising demand of labor causes children**. *Utter nonsense*! The rise of living labor takes our leisure time to prefer.
Nick Carducci for Carface Bank
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T15:33:24.853Z
I did not say anything, I merely copy pasted from the book.
AKdemy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T15:45:01.600Z
@AKdemy you said the opposite of marginal productivity causes a natural rate decrease, exactly.
Nick Carducci for Carface Bank
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T14:11:35.730Z
2022-09-19T14:11:35.730Z
AKdemy
<p>‘That the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men, quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast.’ (Adam Smith, <em>Wealth of Nations</em>, 1.8)</p>
<p>There is nothing original in ‘the constant value of labour’ (Malthus, <em>The Measure of Value</em>, 29).</p>
<p>‘Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength, and spirits; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness.’ (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1.5)</p>
<p>[T]he natural conditions of [the direct producer’s] labour, above all the soil cultivated by him, must be productive enough, in a word, the natural productivity of his labour must be <em>big enough</em> to give him the possibility of retaining some surplus-labour over and above that required for the satisfaction of his own indispensable needs. (Karl Marx, <em>Genesis of Capitalist Ground-Rent</em>, III.6.47)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T12:26:43.337Z
I personally don't see how you gather from these quotes that Smith claims was is in the title of the question; also there seem to be quotes from other philosophers, so what exactly is it that you are asking?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T12:49:31.000Z
@Giskard I am assuming **the production of men** is the birth rate half life ago. I came across the quote from Engel's writing, *[Competition](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch05.htm)*.
Nick Carducci for Carface Bank
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T13:45:15.383Z
So basically, your question is "is birthrate negatively correlated with productivity"? In this case the historical references seem superfluous. If you are asking about some sort of channelling mechanism, you should probably outline that? Question remains unclear to me.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-19T14:27:40.717Z
@Giskard it is your policy to have a body/comments. I need them to assimilate demand and productivity.
Nick Carducci for Carface Bank
<natural-rate-unemployment><adam-smith><karl-marx>
Does productivity lessen the birth rate as Adam Smith claims?
Nick Carducci for Carface Bank
# Does productivity lessen the birth rate as Adam Smith claims?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-09-19)

‘That the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men, quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast.’ (Adam Smith, *Wealth of Nations*, 1.8)

There is nothing original in ‘the constant value of labour’ (Malthus, *The Measure of Value*, 29).

‘Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength, and spirits; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness.’ (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1.5)

[T]he natural conditions of [the direct producer’s] labour, above all the soil cultivated by him, must be productive enough, in a word, the natural productivity of his labour must be *big enough* to give him the possibility of retaining some surplus-labour over and above that required for the satisfaction of his own indispensable needs. (Karl Marx, *Genesis of Capitalist Ground-Rent*, III.6.47)

**Tags:** natural-rate-unemployment, adam-smith, karl-marx

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I personally don't see how you gather from these quotes that Smith claims was is in the title of the question; also there seem to be quotes from other philosophers, so what exactly is it that you are asking?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I am assuming **the production of men** is the birth rate half life ago. I came across the quote from Engel's writing, *[Competition](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch05.htm)*.  
> **username_1**: So basically, your question is "is birthrate negatively correlated with productivity"? In this case the historical references seem superfluous. If you are asking about some sort of channelling mechanism, you should probably outline that? Question remains unclear to me.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 it is your policy to have a body/comments. I need them to assimilate demand and productivity.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-09-19. Score: 2

Adam Smiths writes, just above that sentence you referenced, that

> The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for
> their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number,
> naturally tends to widen and extend those limits.

Just below it, Smith writes

> It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of
> propagation in all the different countries of the world, in North
> America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive
> in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether
> stationary in the last.

Now, `The wealth of Nations` was written in 1776, a time when America grew rapidly. For example, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States) states that

> From 1700 to 1774 the output of the thirteen colonies increased
> 12-fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of
> Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was
> responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the
> British American colonies.

Given all that, I think Adam Smith's view was the exact opposite of your interpretation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Are you saying demand quickens the population? Providing for children is a cost not a cause.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Carducci, where exactly do you think children are a cost not a cause matters here, or is discussed so far?  
> **username_0**: username_2 You said a **rising demand of labor causes children**. *Utter nonsense*! The rise of living labor takes our leisure time to prefer.  
> **username_2**: I did not say anything, I merely copy pasted from the book.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 you said the opposite of marginal productivity causes a natural rate decrease, exactly.  

---

