>I don't get it: if tight labor market =>then faster growth of c in relation
>to v, i.e., adoption of labor saving technique=>then industrial reserve
>army of labor grows anew, leading to downward pressure on the real wage,
>i.e., a loose labor market. How does Gordon expect to preserve a tight
>labor market if its main effect is the assimilation of labor saving
>equipment? Is he confused?
Well he is writing about historical change. He didn't say anything about the desirability or durability of a tight labor market.
He did clarify for me the reason why the heavy entry of women into the paid workforce in the 1970s and 1980s was considered a decline in quality (and this was official statistical policy, not his original idea). If the wage equals the marginal product, and if women's wages were on average 60% of men's, then we can conclude that they're that much less productive than men! QED!!
Doug