Komorzynski’s article reconstructs and rejects Thünen’s formula for a “natural” or “just” wage. Its governing distinction is between rejecting a theory and identifying the premises that actually invalidate it. Through conceptual clarification, mathematical reconstruction, criticism of earlier interpretations, and a two-part refutation, Komorzynski argues that many objections to Thünen target incidental features of his exposition rather than the foundations of his result.
Thünen’s proposed wage lies between subsistence remuneration and the full product of labour. The formula (a+y=\sqrt{ap}) makes wages the geometric mean of subsistence requirements, (a), and product value, (p), after specified deductions; (y) denotes the surplus above subsistence. Komorzynski distinguishes this normative proposal from Thünen’s explanation of actual wages through the output of the last worker employed. Its purpose is to identify the wage most advantageous to workers:
Er sucht denjenigen Lohnsatz zu erforschen, bei dessen Geltung dem Interesse dieses Standes am besten entsprochen werde.
English translation: He seeks to ascertain that rate of wages under whose prevalence the interest of this class would best be met.
The relevant worker, however, saves part of his earnings and thereby acquires an interest in capital income. The formula therefore does not reconcile workers’ interests with those of capitalists generally. Komorzynski stresses the opposing incentive of capital ownership:
Es ist ja auch einleuchtend, dass die Capitalsrente ihr Maximum beim höchsten Gewinnsatze erlangen muss, der eintritt, wenn der Lohn auf den Nothbedarf herabgedrückt ist.
English translation: It is indeed also evident that the rent of capital must attain its maximum at the highest rate of profit, which occurs when wages have been depressed to bare subsistence.
The reconstruction then brings together two routes to Thünen’s result:
Die Ableitung des mathematischen Ausdruckes $\sqrt{\text{ap}}$ wird von Thünen auf doppelte Weise versucht, indem ihr abwechselnd zweierlei Vorstellungen zu Grunde gelegt werden, die dem Anscheine nach von einander völlig verschieden sind.
English translation: The derivation of the mathematical expression √(ap) is attempted by Thünen in a twofold manner, in that two kinds of conception are alternately laid at its foundation, conceptions which to all appearance are entirely different from one another.
In the more prominent derivation, workers at the boundary of the isolated state pool their wage surpluses to establish a farm on unowned land. Their optimal wage supposedly maximizes each participant’s subsequent income from this enterprise. In the other, workers invest their savings at interest. Komorzynski shows that both maximize (yz), the interest earned on a saved annual wage surplus, using (z=[p-(a+y)]/[q(a+y)]), where (q) measures capital in units of annual wages.
The isolated state thus supplies a proposed mechanism for realizing the wage, rather than an indispensable premise of its mathematical determination. Komorzynski questions this mechanism: access to uncultivated land cannot secure independence without prior savings, and Thünen does not establish why productive associations require frontier conditions. Such objections nevertheless do not prove that the calculated wage fails to maximize workers’ advantage.
This distinction structures Komorzynski’s examination of earlier scholarship. Criticisms of unrealistic geography, the reduction of capital to labour, or the difficulty of separating productive contributions do not reach the formula’s essential premises. Knies and Mithoff confuse the just wage with remuneration according to productive contribution; Falck mistakes interest on workers’ savings for the return on capital generally. Komorzynski also redirects Roscher’s objection toward unequal remuneration for equivalent ordinary labour across differently capitalized enterprises.
The final refutation tests two remaining premises. First, Thünen’s interest formula treats product value as constant while allowing capital value to vary with wages. Holding capital at a given value instead yields an arithmetic rather than geometric mean. More fundamentally, a relation containing enterprise-specific values of (p) and (q) cannot establish the claimed general relationship between uniform wage and interest rates: wage changes produce different changes in calculated returns across enterprises.
Second, maximizing interest on savings does not identify a common optimum for workers. Their interests vary with accumulated wealth, saving duration, and willingness to postpone consumption. A worker possessing substantial capital may gain from lower wages through higher interest receipts, while another suffers the wage loss. Repeated saving and compound interest make the maximizing wage depend on the accumulation period; for someone consuming the surplus immediately, the highest wage is preferable.
Komorzynski consequently denies that Thünen has established a universally advantageous intermediate wage. The article’s central contribution is its separation of normative distribution, actual wage determination, and mathematical optimization. A calculated maximum cannot establish distributive justice when its economic relationships and its representation of workers’ interests are defective. This rejection remains compatible with Komorzynski’s admiration for Thünen’s contributions to agricultural economics.
This work was divided into 6 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 6 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian