[ > http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0111/white.pdf ]

> And what is Mr. Weatherby's excuse for pretending my writing abilities
> are relevant to the clarity of the paper at that URL?
> 
> The Graham White paper whose URL is given above does NOT assert that
> the labor market would approach equilibrium more quicky if the labor
> market were more flexible.


Funny flexible wages and prices are unfounded but are assumed in your 
labor demand PDF. This is not what is said in the paper. It says 
lowering real wages may not increase employment due to rigidities not an 
upward sloping labor demand curve. The viewpoint used is Neo-Keynesian 
not Post-Keynesian.

You are very steeped in ideology to think that just because it mentions 
the CCC it suddenly supports your position. In fact they say that the 
CCC supports no relation between relative wages and relative employment. 
This clearly says your labor demand model is wrong becuase it predicts a 
relationship.

The authors point to growth models showing the link between higher 
productivity and higher wages. This is true. Productivity shifts the 
labor demand curve. You can find evidence that wages rose and employment 
rose due to the increase in productivity therefore shifting labor demand 
which implies that more labor is hired at each wage rate.

[ > http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LaborDemand.pdf ]


This is one thing I would have to question about your labor PDF. How 
does worker productivity change. Is the high wage actually caused by 
higher worker productivity. If so you are talking about two distinct 
labor deamand curves not one. If you could write and did not skip steps 
I could figure this out. However, I will just make the comment and let 
you tell me what you think the babble meant.