Doug writes:
>Over the last 6 months, the ranks of the unemployed in the U.S. have grown
>by about 1 million - next to 134 million employed (according to the
>household survey). Retail employment has grown, as has service employment
>in general (according to the establishment survey), and they're at 24m and
>86m respectively. I doubt the rise in unemployment is enough to explain
>the rise in real wages.
I never said that the rise in unemployment was "enough to explain the rise
in real wages." I used the word "also" (or some such) when I put forth my
hypothesis.
>Besides, employers would also want to lay off higher-paid workers before
>lower-paid ones, no? This cuts both ways.
The highest-paid workers are typically those with the most seniority and
other kinds of "insider power." So they are more able to resist.
>So I'll stick with a "dunno."
Of course, even with all the data in, we can't go much further than
"dunno." For me, each conclusion is merely a new working hypothesis, to be
tested empirically (new data, etc.), logically, and in terms of
completeness, perhaps to be replaced by another new working hypothesis.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
