This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Labour economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 15, 2004. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganrasco0315.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Could we please have some names behind these theories ? And could we please have a critique section ?
In writing/editing this article I have tried to present the basic concepts of LE to both non-economists and undergrad economics students. There may be one or two places near the end of the article that the non-economist will have difficulty with, and there will be some places near the beginning that the economics undergrad will find simplistic, but I hope I've acheived a reasonable balance.
This article just skims the surface of LE. I have deliberately omitted such LE concepts as:
I think all of these are better handled as separate articles. Firstly, because they are not central to LE fundamentals, and secondly the article is already 9 computer screens long (which is 3 screens longer than my usual self imposed limit). mydogategodshat 23:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I added a brief section on social networks. I don't actually know much about the subject, but it's an important critique because it questions the basic assumptions of using market-based analysis of employment. I might be biased here since I've never held a job I didn't hear about through personal connections, but it seems important to me. Isomorphic 07:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
This is a very good article on labour economics. I like the split between macro and micro economics too, it is organized nicely. Plus there is room to add the classical and Marxist views of labour too since its categorized in that fashion also.
One thing could be added to the criticisms part and is the neglected role of unpaid labour. Even though labour is unpaid it still can play an important in society, like child raising, but is often neglected in many economic models. Usually it is left out since it is difficult to incorporate it (usually because it is difficult to measure unpaid work), or the best method of incorporating it is disagreed upon. There are a few problems with not including the unpaid labour variable, or any significant variable, in a model. One is that the model’s conclusions might be biased, recommendations cannot be maid on the basis of promoting the good from unpaid labour since it is ignored.
Even though I am not necessarily a fan of Karl Marx, his views are a good contrast to neo classical - classical economics view of labour. A brief excerpt on him might be good, but if being featured on the front page is eminent then I wouldn’t worry about it in the short run. I only have partial notes on Marx / labour from my studies though since I exchanged my Marx class for a class in which the professor didn’t take attendance ;). It’s hard to find unbiased views on Marx or sites that explain his ideas in economic terms clearly.
A brief excerpt could be added on the importance of labour economics since unemployment is the macroeconomic problem that affects the public most directly and severely. You could add that full employment is a goal, i.e. normative economics, of many democracies and one role of labour economics is to try and achieve the full employment objective. That could then segway into a contrast between free market and command economies too since one benefit of command economies is constant full employment.-- ShaunMacPherson 10:44, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Removed:
Lottery winners do not provide a counter example unless they work more than they did before winning the lottery. In order for leisure to to be an inferior good, if someone got more income (without a wage increase, otherwise you have the substition effect) they would want to work more. Another way to think of it would be that if say, welfare was canceled, saying leisure was inferior would imply that fewer people would now want to work. I don't think this makes sense. Jrincayc 13:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Recently the article underwent the usual labor/labour conversion again. ( [1]) I returned it to the "labour" spelling, as per WP:ENGVAR and the matching title.-- Bookandcoffee ( talk) 17:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
--It was originally started in American English. It was switched by some users for no apparent reason. This has been discussed many times. If there isn't a strong community response to keep this ill-begotten change, I'll change it back in late-July 2015 (it's currently June 2015). ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 ( talk) 06:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The page doesn't include anything about different labour market structures which I think is important - ie the difference between internal labour markets where senior appointments are made internally and people tend to stay in the same firms, and occupational labour markets where people move more - I though that was an important aspect of the subject? DavidAndrew
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am an undergraduate student studying economics. I check Wikipedia to scout out possible examples for my studies. Do the contributing editors consider an example of a (for example) perfectly competitive labour market?
The first sentence states this: "Labour economics seeks to understand the functioning of the market and dynamics for labour." I am not sure market in this sense has an ambiguous meaning (what kind of market? is labour economics always about markets?). Eg, would a work like this fit into the above description: Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins [2] ? Or Kautsky's Agrarian Question [3] (specifically am thinking of the analysis of self-exploitation by peasants)? A potential revision for this sentence might be: "Labour economics seeks to understand the functioning, cost and dynamics of labour."-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
"Wage is a basic compensation for labour" should this not be qualified as ""Wage is a basic compensation for *paid* labour"? Unfree labour or unpaid labour does not produce wages, but surely concepts within the rubric of labour economics?-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The section on microeconomics of labor asserts:
These assertions are misleading. The way they are written makes it sound as if 'non-clearing' means supply>demand. But what's emphasized instead in the modern search and matching theory that won this year's Nobel is the simultaneous existence of unemployed workers and unfilled vacancies. That is, the modern approach emphasizes frictions that prevent all transactions from occurring instantaneously. It does not claim insufficient demand for labor.
So the dubious assertions should either be deleted, or they should be rewritten in a way that emphasizes frictions (and directs the reader to the later section on search and matching theory. Rinconsoleao ( talk) 08:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this page is in this category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.37.11 ( talk) 17:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! Selery ( talk) 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Labor Economics," a major field of economics, "part of a series on Organized Labor"? Although organized labor is explored in labor economics, it is a scholarly discipline with a wide scope. I think this article would be better off as part of a series on Economics, as its current categorization suggests the Labor Economics has an ideological slant towards organized labor. Mr.glegg ( talk) 14:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)mr.glegg
@ Mr.glegg
Why is this article still in British English after it was obviously started in American English, and was changed without any consent? Shouldn't it still be at Labor economics as it was started in 2002? ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 ( talk) 06:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Stancanelli has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
1. . If 12 individuals each take one month before they start a new job, the aggregate unemployment statistics will record this as a single unemployed worker. Technological advancement often reduces frictional unemployment, for example: internet search engines have reduced the cost and time associated with locating employment.
This does not clarify but complicates. II would drop this example.
2. If 4 workers each take six months off to re-train before they start a new job, the aggregate unemployment statistics will record this as two unemployed workers.
Again I would drop this example.
3. Compensating differentials among similar workers
Compensating differentials should compensate for differences in job penalties, but I am not sure that this is what is meant here. I would rather say:
earning differentials among similar workers
4. However, they are constrained by the hours available to them.
This forgets the budget constraint. Perhaps change to:
However, they are constrained by the hours and income available to them.
Or to:
Individual choices are constrained by their pay (per hour worked) and other non-labor income available to them, as well as by the hours available over their (working) lifetime.
5. Max U(wL +pgrec, A) Subject to L+A <= K
again this forgets the budget constraint, and also forgets consumption and assumes that all income is consumed (no savings) so should read
Max U(C, A) Subject to L+A <= K & wL+ pgrec= C
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Stancanelli has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 16:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Labour economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Why are there no citations for this section? The information in this section is easily verifiable by any macroeconomics textbook. Would anyone oppose me using Mankiw's Principles of Macroeconomics text in order to rephrase and add citations to this section? Morganrasco0315 ( talk) 16:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to changing the title of the section to "Asymmetric Information"? I was thoroughly confused by the title of the section and how it linked to the information provided in the section. Actually, would anyone mind if I included more information from Managerial Economics written by Froeb (and others) in order to more explain how adverse selection and its role in work? Morganrasco0315 ( talk) 16:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
“The labour market in macroeconomic theory shows that the supply of labour exceeds demand, which has been proven by salary growth that lags productivity growth. When labour supply exceeds demand, salary faces downward pressure due to an employer's ability to pick from a labour pool that exceeds the jobs pool. However, if the demand for labour is larger than the supply, salary increases, as employee have more bargaining power while employers have to compete for scarce labour.“ 50.93.222.59 ( talk) 02:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)