> I take the point that an increase anywhere ought to
> help the entire wage distribution, if we are talking
> about money, so in this sense the auto worker is no
> more key than the sandwichman. . . .
The above is, dare I say it, the neoclassical theory of wage spillover.
This doesn’t mean that is it wrong but the focus on a symmetrical
relationship between wage spillover in different industries and of
substitution between workers in different markets tends to be too narrow. .
. .
Well I'm, dare I say it, a neo-classical economist of sorts,
but I don't doubt it is too narrow. It explains how one result
affects a subsequent outcome, not where the initial effect
comes from. I didn't mean to imply symmetry, incidentally;
only two-way effects.
On the other hand, if somebody tried to say wage cuts resulted
from an attack on the w.c. by Capital, one would have to ask
why then, and why that much?
mbs
winmail.dat
