Jim asks why we don't debate/explore theoretical questions more. To me the answer is easy. For the political, ephemeral questions that dominate the list (and which I enjoy as much as anyone else), it is easy to drop a line or two in response. For the kind of issues Jim wants us to debate, it is both time consuming and 'difficult' to respond -- by difficult I mean one has to almost write a paper to respond. I (for one) just don't have the time to respond to these questions and I admire Jim, Barkle, Michael and others who do seem to find both the time and inspiration to do so. This does not mean that I don't appreciate the input of others. I just this evening finished teaching a continuing ed course for human resource managers on the political economy of labour markets in which the prime source of materials was Pen-l and PKT lists in addition to Canadian sources. Next week I am off to Slovenia to study further the effect of market conversion to worker involvement in self-management so I don't have much time to respond to Jim's queries and concerns. Nevertheless, I will respond a little beyond the brief comment I made to Jim previously. The neoclassical labour market model is so hopelessly irrelevant to the real world that trying to 'justify' minimum wage, unions, etc. to the determination of wages and employment in neoclassical terms is a waste of time and effort. Richard Lester (1940s or 50s) i in his empirical work showed that managers, faced with rising wages, readjusted their labour processes to increase the productivity, at given prices, to validate wages. Thus, contrary to the neoclassical view, productivity adjusted to wages, not employment. Maclub, of course, disputed this view on neoclassical grounds, but, I would argue, Lester had it right. The basic problem with neoclassical economics is its static, equilibrium model. (Well, actually, there are so many basic fundamental problems with the neoclassical model that it would take much too long to elaborate.) But, what (in the context of minimum wages, unions, etc.) it fails to deal with is the dialectic between wages, organization of work, worker productivity, and macro- economic acitivity within the community. It also assumes things like positively sloping supply curves of labour (empirically falsified), competative labour markets, (also empirically falsified) and all of the other mysifications of the neoclassical labour market. Jim and I face the same problem when we try to teach labour market economics (I hope I am not presuming on your teaching Jim?) The text books all show an upward sloping supply curve of labour and a downward sloping demand curve for labour. The fact that neither is empirically correct, nor is there any consideration of the interaction between wage, participation, work organization, or hours employed in the theory is a scandal on economics (perhaps not the least scandal). Jim, I see your point and I agree with it. But are we just to be a crying circle of misunderstood dissidents -- or what do we do about it. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba.
