The 'labor scarcity' hypothesis in economic history suggests that the high wages resulting from a shortage of workers during the Industrial Revolution incentivized British manufacturers to invest in labor-saving machinery. This, in turn, accelerated technological innovation and provided Britain with a competitive advantage over continental Europe, where labor remained cheap and abundant. However, some scholars argue that this hypothesis oversimplifies the role of coal. They point out that while labor was expensive, energy in Britain was uniquely inexpensive due to accessible coal deposits. In this view, it was the low cost of coal, rather than the high cost of labor, that made the transition to energy-intensive steam power economically viable. Without cheap energy, manufacturers would have found the capital costs of new machinery prohibitive, regardless of the wage levels.