PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: query: real wage catch-up
- To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: query: real wage catch-up
- From: Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:50:34 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DNYMASL2R+fNrgdqHUzdg6yGhRy/IN2Puhyqc//D3O2b/kaeC8Z4mhcNL24imI+hvDhBlv1HCMvKAqquWZ1mzKOerfjd+BwkJtiECdXr0GrjhC7AWXMB6gKGTwdTs0GTLcmErFB4uLlu23r2ge7XAHcdvuDuDXVnnC3pzvGSjAg=
On 6/7/05, Michael Perelman wrote:
> Didn't wages fail to keep up with productivity in the 20s as mechanization accellerated?<
It depends on the sector. In the US, wages fell behind productivity
growth in manufacturing, the corporate sector, and the like. But they
did better in small business...
By the way, here's the quote I'm using (though the Meltzer one is good, too):
One statement of this faith is by McConnell and Brue (2005: 279):
"Real wages … do not always rise in lockstep with gains in
productivity over short spans of time. But over long periods,
productivity and real wages tend to rise together." The latter
assertion seems contradicted by their diagram 15.1 on the same page.
--
Jim Devine
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]