changes in society

Adam Smith is responsible for laying much of the groundwork for modern economics. His ideas in “Of the Natural Progress of Opulence” can be applied to all economies regardless of time or place, but his conclusions should not be taken literally because of his lack of foresight concerning how a society will evolve past the late 1700’s, which is when the piece was written. A literal interpretation of his conclusions would not be beneficial to the modern laborer because of the way society and the economy has since evolved.
In Smith’s rhetoric he describes his theory on the way a society evolves from small subsistence farming into a society with complex jobs and intricate trading. Smith’s ideas of an evolutionary society have proved to be correct, but the flaw in his writing comes when he assumes that his own society has reached the final stage of society’s evolution. He sees that agriculture comes before manufactures, and foreign commerce comes after that, but he can’t see the way that a society will evolve in regards to industry and service (which is how society has since evolved). This is understandable, and no one should expect Smith to be that prophetic, but he should not have been so conclusive in stating that the finality in economics occurs when one can cultivate his own land and be self-sufficient.
One way that Smith’s ideas differ from those of today is his theories on what is good for the economy and the population as a whole. The economy of Smith’s time would benefit from his ideas of each person working for his or her own personal benefit, therefore benefiting all of society, but today things are different. The differences are mainly in the way that people accumulate wealth. In Smith’s time, almost everyone was worked in an agricultural position, which means that one would naturally provide for him or herself before providing excess to others for a profit. Today, a much smaller portion of the population is involved in agriculture (about 16%), and most of the population is employed in positions that rely on pleasing the population by mastering a service related trade. Some examples include jobs in media, food service, fashion and clothing, retail, and even in education and law among many others. These trades require the laborer to provide for others before he is able to provide for himself. This makes society function more smoothly when laborers work with the population for the benefit of others, thus benefiting themselves. This fact forces one to reanalyze Smith’s arguments and realize that while he was correct about the evolution of societies economically, the way that society has since evolved (beyond his ability to foresee) has created a flaw in his initial argument.