To Gil Skillman and others

[Walt Byars <wbyars@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm in kind of a confused state regarding economics right now. As is
obvious, I am having some theoretical problems with Marxian economics.
However, there is alot of empirical evidence I've seen that makes it
difficult for me to accept neoclassical economics, even the more
sophisticated "new keynesian" and "radical" variants.

I can not take seriously the idea that the worse and more dangerous a job
gets, the more hours and intensity of work, that workers will necessarily
get paid more. Or at least that the amount of compensation will be so
small as to not necessitate anything approaching "efficiency," even with
reasonably informed participants and competitive markets.

Are there any neoclassical theories which explain this, or leave it as a
possibility? Does Gil Skillman and Jacobsen's book on labor economics deal
with this? I own it but haven't read it yet.