A fair price doesn't imply "good" or "enough to live off". Ultimately, only so many people can live off a finite amount of land. The amount of labor regulates itself as well (i.e. less children are born).
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.
Smith also writes at length of the power imbalance between business owners and employers, who can and do collude to keep down labour wages, whilst labour has far less power (and in his time, no legal right) to organise to raise them. Of the inherent inequality and dangers of piecework pay. And of the differential returns to various economic goods and activities, particularly wages, commodities, rents, interest, assets (to Smith, gold and silver), and public goods. More recent economic understanding is that the marginal cost / marginal price, and differential risk / consequence dynamics of such interactions provide distinct behaviours and advantages to specific powers. The inherent imbalance between wages (tending to subsitence, or below) and rents (tending to all consumer surplus for the producer), create an inherent conflict.
Then there are the problems of corporate ownership and behaviour (roundly criticised by Smith in the form of join stock companies), the corporatisation of violence ("Regulated companies, it was observed by Sir Josiah Child, though they had frequently supported public ministers, had never maintained any forts or garrisons in the countries to which they traded; whereas joint stock companies frequently had", and general collusion of commercial interests against those of the common weal.
The passage I'd previously cited ties wages largely to economic growth, stagnation, or decline, and the story it paints is both stark and well worth consideration.
Look, this just doesn't disagree with what a "fair price" is. If "a man must live by his work" but the market doesn't afford it to him, then indeed "the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation". That means this kind of worker goes extinct, as many professions have in the past.
I'm well aware that Smith on occasion argues for protectionism to "smooth out" that extinction process. That's welfare. It has no bearing on fair prices in free trade.
> But all too often the resources to pay a living wage exist but the market has been manipulated such that the labourer won't be able to claim that.
These are orthogonal. A fair market price simply isn't equal to the price that is required to sustain someone's living. A fair market price also is not equal to the price that could be paid (i.e. the "resources available").
The laborer whose price is raised to some arbitrary limit that is above the market rate will find demand for their labor disappear in equal measure.
And the market, and economy, should serve the people. Not the people the market.
"POLITICAL œconomy, considered as a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign."
> And the market, and economy, should serve the people. Not the people the market.
This is a meaningless slogan. The market is the people. Demand reflects what people need. Supply reflects what people have to offer. Prices reflect their agreement.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...
Smith also writes at length of the power imbalance between business owners and employers, who can and do collude to keep down labour wages, whilst labour has far less power (and in his time, no legal right) to organise to raise them. Of the inherent inequality and dangers of piecework pay. And of the differential returns to various economic goods and activities, particularly wages, commodities, rents, interest, assets (to Smith, gold and silver), and public goods. More recent economic understanding is that the marginal cost / marginal price, and differential risk / consequence dynamics of such interactions provide distinct behaviours and advantages to specific powers. The inherent imbalance between wages (tending to subsitence, or below) and rents (tending to all consumer surplus for the producer), create an inherent conflict.
Then there are the problems of corporate ownership and behaviour (roundly criticised by Smith in the form of join stock companies), the corporatisation of violence ("Regulated companies, it was observed by Sir Josiah Child, though they had frequently supported public ministers, had never maintained any forts or garrisons in the countries to which they traded; whereas joint stock companies frequently had", and general collusion of commercial interests against those of the common weal.
The passage I'd previously cited ties wages largely to economic growth, stagnation, or decline, and the story it paints is both stark and well worth consideration.