一時期／支部 20

THE EMPLOYMENT FUNCTION
 

I

In 一時期／支部 3 (一時期／支部 3 ) we have defined the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 Z  = f(N), which relates the 雇用 N with the aggregate 供給（する） price of the corresponding 生産（高）. The 雇用 機能（する）／行事 only 異なるs from the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 in that it is, in 影響, its inverse 機能（する）／行事 and is defined ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊; the 反対する of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 存在 to relate the 量 of the 効果的な 需要・要求する, 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊, directed to a given 会社／堅い or 産業 or to 産業 as a whole with the 量 of 雇用, the 供給（する） price of the 生産（高） of which will compare to that 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する. Thus if an 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する D_wr, 手段d in 行う-部隊s, directed to a 会社／堅い or 産業 calls 前へ／外へ an 量 of 雇用 N_r in that 会社／堅い or 産業, the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 is given by N_r  =  F_r(D_wr). Or, more 一般に, if we are する権利を与えるd to assume that D_wr is a unique 機能（する）／行事 of the total 効果的な 需要・要求する D_w, the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 is given by N_r  = F_r(D_w) That is to say, N_r men will be 雇うd in 産業 r when 効果的な 需要・要求する is D_w.

We shall develop in this 一時期／支部 確かな 所有物／資産／財産s of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事. But apart from any 利益／興味 which these may have, there are two 推論する／理由s why the substitution of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for the ordinary 供給（する） curve is consonant with the methods and 反対するs of this 調書をとる／予約する. In the first place, it 表明するs the 関連した facts ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 部隊s to which we have decided to 制限する ourselves, without introducing any of the 部隊s which have a 疑わしい quantitative character. In the second place, it lends itself to the problems of 産業 and 生産（高） as a whole, as 際立った from the problems of a 選び出す／独身 産業 or 会社／堅い in a given 環境, more easily than does the ordinary 供給（する） curve¾for the に引き続いて 推論する／理由s.

The ordinary 需要・要求する curve for a particular 商品／必需品 is drawn on some 仮定／引き受けること as to the incomes of members of the public, and has to be re-drawn if the incomes change. In the same way the ordinary 供給（する） curve for a particular 商品／必需品 is drawn on some 仮定／引き受けること as to the 生産（高） of 産業 as a whole and is liable to change if the aggregate 生産（高） of 産業 is changed. When, therefore, we are 診察するing the 返答 of individual 産業s to changes in aggregate 雇用, we are やむを得ず 関心d, not with a 選び出す／独身 需要・要求する curve for each 産業, in 合同 with a 選び出す／独身 供給（する） curve, but with two families of such curves corresponding to different 仮定／引き受けることs as to the aggregate 雇用. In the 事例／患者 of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事, however, the 仕事 of arriving at a 機能（する）／行事 for 産業 as a whole which will 反映する changes in 雇用 as a whole is more practicable.

For let us assume (to begin with) that the propensity to 消費する is given 同様に as the other factors which we have taken as given in above, and that we are considering changes in 雇用 in 返答 to changes in the 率 of 投資. 支配する to this 仮定／引き受けること, for every level of 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s there will be a corresponding aggregate 雇用 and this 効果的な 需要・要求する will be divided in determinate 割合s between 消費 and 投資. Moreover, each level of 効果的な 需要・要求する will correspond to a given 配当 of income. It is reasonable, therefore, その上の to assume that corresponding to a given level of aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する there is a unique 配当 of it between different 産業s.

This enables us to 決定する what 量 of 雇用 in each 産業 will correspond to a given level of aggregate 雇用. That is to say, it gives us the 量 of 雇用 in each particular 産業 corresponding to each level of aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s, so that the 条件s are 満足させるd for the second form of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for the 産業, defined above, すなわち N_r  =  F_r(D_w) Thus we have the advantage that, in these 条件s, the individual 雇用 機能（する）／行事s are additive in the sense that the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for 産業 as a whole, corresponding to a given level of 効果的な 需要・要求する, is equal to the sum of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事s for each separate 産業; i.e.

F_r(D_w)  =  N  =  SN_r  = SF_r(D_w).

Next, let us define the elasticity of 雇用. The elasticity of 雇用 for a given 産業 is

              dN_r         D_wr
e_er  =  ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ ,
            dD_wr          N_r

since it 対策 the 返答 of the number of 労働-部隊s 雇うd in the 産業 to changes in the number of 行う-部隊s which are 推定する／予想するd to be spent on 購入（する）ing its 生産（高）. The elasticity of 雇用 for 産業 as a whole we shall 令状

             dN           D_w
e_e  =  ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ ,
            dD_w          N_r

供給するd that we can find some 十分に 満足な method of 手段ing 生産（高）, it is also useful to define what may be called the elasticity of 生産（高） or 生産／産物, which 対策 the 率 at which 生産（高） in any 産業 増加するs when more 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s is directed に向かって it, すなわち

              dO_r          D_wr
e_or  =  ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ ,
             dD_wr          O_r

供給するd we can assume that the price is equal to the ごくわずかの prime cost, we then have

                      1
DD_wr  =  ¾¾¾¾DP_r
                 1 - e_or

where P_r is the 推定する／予想するd 利益（をあげる）. It follows from this that if e_or  =  0, i.e. if the 生産（高） of the 産業 is perfectly inelastic, the whole of the 増加するd 効果的な 需要・要求する (ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) is 推定する／予想するd to accrue to the entrepreneur as 利益（をあげる）, i.e. DD_wr  =  DP_r; whilst if e_or  =  1, i.e. if the elasticity of 生産（高） is まとまり, no part of the 増加するd 効果的な 需要・要求する is 推定する／予想するd to accrue as 利益（をあげる）, the whole of it 存在 吸収するd by the elements entering into ごくわずかの prime cost.

Moreover, if the 生産（高） of an 産業 is a 機能（する）／行事 f(N_r) of the 労働 雇うd in it, we have

   1 - e_or                N_r f"(N_r)
¾¾¾¾  = - ¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ ,
     e_er                  p_wr{f'(N_r)}²

where p_wr is the 推定する／予想するd price of a 部隊 of 生産（高） ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊. Thus the 条件 e_or  =  1 means that f"(N_r)  =  0, i.e. that there are constant returns in 返答 to 増加するd 雇用.

Now, in so far as the classical theory assumes that real 給料 are always equal to the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 and that the latter 増加するs when 雇用 増加するs, so that the 労働 供給（する） will 落ちる off; cet. par., if real 給料 are 減ずるd, it is assuming that in practice it is impossible to 増加する 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s. If this were true, the 概念 of elasticity of 雇用 would have no field of 使用／適用. Moreover, it would, in this event, be impossible to 増加する 雇用 by 増加するing 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money; for money-給料 would rise proportionately to the 増加するd money 支出 so that there would be no 増加する of 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s and その結果 no 増加する in 雇用. But if the classical 仮定／引き受けること does not 持つ／拘留する good, it will be possible to 増加する 雇用 by 増加するing 支出 in 条件 of money until real 給料 have fallen to equality with the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働, at which point there will, by 鮮明度／定義, be 十分な 雇用.

Ordinarily, of course, e_or will have a value 中間の between 無 and まとまり. The extent to which prices (ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) will rise, i.e. the extent to which real 給料 will 落ちる, when money 支出 is 増加するd, depends, therefore, on the elasticity of 生産（高） in 返答 to 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s.

Let the elasticity of the 推定する／予想するd price p_wr in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する D_wr, すなわち (dp_wr/dD_wr) × (D_wr /p_wr), be written e'_pr.

Since O_r × p_wr  = D_wr, we have

     dO_r          D_wr           dp_wr         D_wr
¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾  +  ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾  =  1
    dD_wr          O_r            dD_wr         p_wr

or         e'_pr + e_or  =  1.

That is to say, the sum of the elasticities of price and of 生産（高） in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する (手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) is equal to まとまり. 効果的な 需要・要求する spends itsell, partly in 影響する／感情ing 生産（高） and partly in 影響する／感情ing price, によれば this 法律.

If we are 取引，協定ing with 産業 as a whole and are 用意が出来ている to assume that we have a 部隊 in which 生産（高） as a whole can be 手段d, the same line of argument 適用するs, so that e'_p + e_o  =  1, where the elasticities without a suffix r 適用する to 産業 as a whole.

Let us now 手段 values in money instead of 行う-部隊s and 延長する to this 事例／患者 our 結論s in 尊敬（する）・点 of 産業 as a whole.

If W stands for the money-給料 of a 部隊 of 労働 and p for the 推定する／予想するd price of a 部隊 of 生産（高） as a whole ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, we can 令状 e_p (= (Ddp) / (pdD)) for the elasticity of money-prices in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, and e_w (= (DdW) / (WdD)) for the elasticity of money-給料 in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. It is then easily shown that

e_p  =  1  =  e_o(1 -e_w).

This equation is, as we shall see in the next 一時期／支部, first step to a generalised 量 theory of money.

If e_o  =  0 or if e_w  =  1, 生産（高） will be unaltered and prices will rise in the same 割合 as 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. さもなければ they will rise in a smaller 割合.
 

II

Let us return to the 雇用 機能（する）／行事. We have assumed in the foregoing that to every level or aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する there corresponds a unique 配当 of 効果的な 需要・要求する between the 製品s of each individual 産業. Now, as aggregate 支出 changes, the corresponding 支出 on the 製品s of an individual 産業 will not, in general, change in the same 割合;¾partly because individuals will not, as their incomes rise, 増加する the 量 of the 製品s of each separate 産業, which they 購入（する）, in the same 割合, and partly because the prices of different 商品／必需品s will 答える／応じる in different degrees to 増加するs in 支出 upon them.

It follows from this that the 仮定／引き受けること upon which we have worked hitherto, that changes in 雇用 depend 単独で on changes in aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する (ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s), is no better than a first approximation, if we 収容する／認める that there is more than one way in which an 増加する of income can be spent. For the way in which we suppose the 増加する in aggregate 需要・要求する to be 分配するd between different 商品／必需品s may かなり 影響（力） the 容積／容量 of 雇用. If, for example, the 増加するd 需要・要求する is 大部分は directed に向かって 製品s which have a high elasticity of 雇用, the aggregate 増加する in 雇用 will be greater than if it is 大部分は directed に向かって 製品s which have a low elasticity of 雇用.

In the same way 雇用 may 落ちる off without there having been any change in aggregate 需要・要求する, if the direction of 需要・要求する is changed in favour of 製品s having a 比較して low elasticity of 雇用.

These considerations are 特に important if we are 関心d with short-period phenomena in the sense of changes in the 量 or direction of 需要・要求する which are not foreseen some time ahead. Some 製品s take time to produce, so that it is 事実上 impossible to 増加する the 供給（する） of them quickly. Thus, if 付加 需要・要求する is directed to them without notice, they will show a low elasticity of 雇用; although it may be that, given 十分な notice, their elasticity of 雇用 approaches まとまり.

It is in this 関係 that I find the 主要な／長／主犯 significance of the conception of a period of 生産／産物. A 製品, I should prefer to say, has a period of 生産／産物 n if n time-部隊s of notice of changes in the 需要・要求する for it have to be given if it is to 申し込む／申し出 its 最大限 elasticity of 雇用. 明白に 消費-goods, taken as a whole, have in this sense the longest period of 生産／産物, since of every 生産力のある 過程 they 構成する the last 行う／開催する／段階. Thus if the first impulse に向かって the 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する comes from an 増加する in 消費, the 初期の elasticity of 雇用 will be その上の below its 結局の equilibrium-level than if the impulse comes from an 増加する in 投資. Moreover, if the 増加するd 需要・要求する is directed to 製品s with a 比較して low elasticity of 雇用, a larger 割合 of it will go to swell the incomes of entrepreneurs and a smaller 割合 to swell the incomes of 行う-earners and other prime-cost factors; with the possible result that the repercussions may be somewhat いっそう少なく favourable to 支出, 借りがあるing to the 見込み of entrepreneurs saving more of their increment of income than 行う-earners would. にもかかわらず the distinction between the two 事例／患者s must not be over-明言する／公表するd, since a large part of the reactions will be much the same in both.

However long the notice given to entrepreneurs of a 見込みのある change in 需要・要求する, it is not possible for the 初期の elasticity of 雇用, in 返答 to a given 増加する of 投資, to be as 広大な／多数の／重要な as its 結局の equilibrium value, unless there are 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s and 黒字／過剰 capacity at every 行う／開催する／段階 of 生産／産物. On the other 手渡す, the depletion of the 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s will have an offsetting 影響 on the 量 by which 投資 増加するs. If we suppose that there are 最初 some 黒字／過剰s at every point, the 初期の elasticity of 雇用 may approximate to まとまり; then after the 在庫／株s have been 吸収するd, but before an 増加するd 供給（する） is coming 今後 at an 適する 率 from the earlier 行う／開催する／段階s of 生産／産物, the elasticity will 落ちる away; rising again に向かって まとまり as the new position of equilibrium is approached. This is 支配する, however, to some 資格 in so far as there are rent factors which 吸収する more 支出 as 雇用 増加するs, or if the 率 of 利益／興味 増加するs. For these 推論する／理由s perfect 安定 of prices is impossible in an economy 支配する to change¾unless, indeed, there is some peculiar 機械装置 which 確実にするs 一時的な fluctuations of just the 権利 degree in the propensity to 消費する. But price-不安定 arising in this way does not lead to the 肉親，親類d of 利益（をあげる） 刺激 which is liable to bring into 存在 超過 capacity. For the windfall 伸び（る） will wholly accrue to those entrepreneurs who happen to 所有する 製品s at a 比較して 前進するd 行う／開催する／段階 of 生産／産物, and there is nothing which the entrepreneur, who does not 所有する specialised 資源s of the 権利 肉親，親類d, can do to attract this 伸び（る） to himself. Thus the 必然的な price-不安定 予定 to change cannot 影響する／感情 the 活動／戦闘s of entrepreneurs, but 単に directs a de facto windfall of wealth into the （競技場の）トラック一周s of the lucky ones (mutatis mutandis when the supposed change is in the other direction). This fact has, I think, been overlooked in some 同時代の discussions of a practical 政策 目的（とする）d at stabilising prices.

It is true that in a society liable to change such a 政策 cannot be perfectly successful. But it does not follow that every small 一時的な 出発 from price 安定 やむを得ず 始める，決めるs up a cumulative disequilibrium.
 

III

We have shown that when 効果的な 需要・要求する is deficient there is under-雇用 of 労働 in the sense that there are men 失業した who would be willing to work at いっそう少なく than the 存在するing real 行う. その結果, as 効果的な 需要・要求する 増加するs, 雇用 増加するs, though at a real 行う equal to or いっそう少なく than the 存在するing one, until a point comes at which there is no 黒字／過剰 of 労働 利用できる at the then 存在するing real 行う; i.e. no more men (or hours of 労働) 利用できる unless money-給料 rise (from this point onwards) faster than prices. The next problem is to consider what will happen If, when this point has been reached, 支出 still continues to 増加する.

Up to this point the 減少（する）ing return from 適用するing more 労働 to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 has been 相殺する by the acquiescence of 労働 in a 減らすing real 行う. But after this point a 部隊 of 労働 would 要求する the 誘導 of the 同等（の） of an 増加するd 量 of 製品, 反して the 産する／生じる from 適用するing a その上の 部隊 would be a 減らすd 量 of 製品. The 条件s of strict equilibrium 要求する, therefore, that 給料 and prices, and その結果 利益（をあげる）s also, should all rise in the same 割合 as 支出, the 'real' position, 含むing the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） and 雇用, 存在 left 不変の in all 尊敬（する）・点s. We have reached, that is to say, a 状況／情勢 in which the 天然のまま 量 theory of money (解釈する／通訳するing 'velocity' to mean 'income-velocity') is fully 満足させるd; for 生産（高） does not alter and prices rise in exact 割合 to MV.

にもかかわらず there are 確かな practical 資格s to this 結論 which must be borne in mind in 適用するing it to an actual 事例／患者:

(1)  For a time at least, rising prices may delude entrepreneurs into 増加するing 雇用 beyond the level which maximises their individual 利益（をあげる）s 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 製品. For they are so accustomed to regard rising sale-proceeds ーに関して／ーの点でs of money as a signal for 拡大するing 生産／産物, that they may continue to do so when this 政策 has in fact 中止するd to be to their best advantage; i.e. they may underestimate their ごくわずかの 使用者 cost in the new price 環境.

(2)  Since that part of his 利益（をあげる） which the entrepreneur has to 手渡す on to the rentier is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, rising prices, even though unaccompanied by any change in 生産（高）, will redistribute incomes to the advantage of the entrepreneur and to the disadvantage of the rentier, which may have a reaction on the propensity to 消費する. This, however, is not a 過程 which will have only begun when 十分な 雇用 has been 達成するd;¾it will have been making 安定した 進歩 all the time that the 支出 was 増加するing. If the rentier is いっそう少なく 傾向がある to spend than the entrepreneur, the 漸進的な 撤退 of real income from the ormer will mean that 十分な 雇用 will be reached with a smaller 増加する in the 量 of money and a smaller 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味 than will be the 事例／患者 if the opposite hypothesis 持つ／拘留するs. After 十分な 雇用 has been reached, a その上の rise of prices will, if the first hypothesis continues to 持つ／拘留する, mean that the 率 of 利益／興味 will have to rise somewhat to 妨げる prices from rising 無期限に／不明確に, and that the 増加する in the 量 of money will be いっそう少なく than in 割合 to the 増加する in 支出; whilst if the second hypothesis 持つ／拘留するs, the opposite will be the 事例／患者. It may be that, as the real income of the rentier is 減らすd, a point will come when, as a result of his growing 親族 impoverishment, there will be a change-over from the first hypothesis to the second, which point may be reached either before or after 十分な 雇用 has been 達成するd.
 

IV

There is, perhaps, something a little perplexing in the 明らかな asymmetry between インフレーション and デフレ. For whilst a デフレ of 効果的な 需要・要求する below the level 要求するd for 十分な 雇用 will 減らす 雇用 as 井戸／弁護士席 as prices, an インフレーション of it above this level will 単に 影響する／感情 prices. This asymmetry is, however, 単に a reflection of the fact that, whilst 労働 is always in a position to 辞退する to work on a 規模 伴う／関わるing a real 行う which is いっそう少なく than the ごくわずかの disutility of that 量 of 雇用, it is not in a position to 主張する on 存在 申し込む／申し出d work on a 規模 伴う／関わるing a real 行う which is not greater than the ごくわずかの disutility of that 量 of 雇用.

---