1704380448
1704380449
10.Spinners, in fact, also had learning curves and hence some significant skills.However, their learning curves were lower, implying lower skill levels.See Leunig, “Piece Rates and Learning.”
1704380450
1704380451
11.Bessen, “Technology and Learning.”
1704380452
1704380453
12.Dublin, Women at Work, p..10.
1704380454
1704380455
13.In 1834, after the first strike, the strikers were replaced by trainees who were soon as productive as the women they replaced.Given that the mills had excess inventory, the production lost from the walkout was not especially costly.In 1836, the strike was more costly because the mills were understaffed before the strike.
1704380456
1704380457
14.We can infer that a newly hired weaver has experience if, in the payroll records, we observe that she was put directly on piece rate pay without any training period.Inexperienced weavers were put on day wages for two or three weeks while training before earning piece rate wages.These figures come from the Lawrence Company in Lowell.
1704380458
1704380459
15.The market may also have been small because the mills of Lowell tried to avoid hiring from each other.This group of mills had overlapping ownership and set wages jointly (Dublin, Women at Work, p.10) and might have avoided hiring away experienced weavers from one another.However, there were plenty of other mills operating in New England that had different ownership and competed for workers (McGouldrick, New England Textiles, p.37).The lack of standardization appears to have limited competition much more than the control over the market exerted by the Lowell mills.
1704380460
1704380461
16.Gibb, Saco-Lowell Shops.
1704380462
1704380463
17.Rosen, “Economics of Superstars.” Note, however, that the superstar model applies when there is a great economy of scale, such as for an entertainer whose work is replicated digitally.This is something that does not occur in most occupations, however.
1704380464
1704380465
18.There were a number of mill companies in Lowell, but because they had overlapping ownership and management, they set wages jointly and avoided “poaching” employees from one another.They acted effectively more like a single company so that weavers would have to relocate to another town to find comparable work.
1704380466
1704380467
19.Ware,Early New England Cotton Manufacture; and Kulik, Parks, and Penn, New England Mill Village.
1704380468
1704380469
20.Smith Wilkinson cited in Ware, Early New England Cotton Manufacture,p..200.
1704380470
1704380471
21.In the language of human capital theory, the case with a limited market corresponds to “firm-specific” human capital while the case with the robust market is called “general” human capital.See Becker, Human Capital.
1704380472
1704380473
22.In economic theory, the provision of firm-specific human capital can be under provided because firms cannot credibly commit to rewarding employees for expending effort at learning.See Acemoglu and Autor, “Lectures in Labor Economics.”
1704380474
1704380475
23.Marx, Capital, vol.1, ch..15, sec..5.
1704380476
1704380477
24.Lyons, “Family Response.”
1704380478
1704380479
25.Bessen, “More Machines.”
1704380480
1704380481
26.Raw cotton used in textiles grew from about.027 bales per person in 1860 to.064 bales per person in 1920.After 1920, cotton consumption per capita exhibits no clear trend.Of course, the U.S.population grew substantially from 1830 to 1900, but not enough to o.set the labor-saving effect of technology.
1704380482
1704380483
27.McKenzie and Smith, “Protectionism Warranted?” The number of cotton textile workers declined from about 450,000.in 1920, to about 300,000.in 1960, to about 50,000 in 2002 (Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States; Becker, Gray, and Marvakov, NBER-CES Manufacturing Industry Database).Output per worker is estimated from the NBER-CES database; from 1958 to 2005, real output per employee has grown an average 3.2 percent per year in cotton textiles (SIC 2211).Some of the decline in cotton employment can also be attributed to o.shoring and to shifts in consumer preferences to new fibers.
1704380484
1704380485
28.The price elasticity of demand will decline as price declines under some rather general conditions.Suppose, for example, that consumers’ willingness to pay is distributed according to a distribution function.Let F(p) be the cumulative distribution function with respect to price, p.Then demand will be proportional to 1 – F(p).It is straightforward to show that the elasticity of demand with respect to price will increase with price if F is a lognormal distribution or a wide variety of other common distributions.Typical economic distributions, such as those for income or wealth, are lognormal.
1704380486
1704380487
29.Saxonhouse and Wright, “Technique, Spirit, and Form.”
1704380488
1704380489
30.Clark, “Why Isn’t the Whole World Developed?”
1704380490
1704380491
31.Zeitz, “Do Local Institutions Affect All Foreign Investors in the Same Way?”
1704380492
1704380493
32.Bloom et al., “Does Management Matter?”
1704380494
1704380495
33.Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States imported more textiles than it exported.Although the United States was the most efficient producer of coarse cloths, much of the imported cloth was fine and fancy product.
1704380496
1704380497
34.In 2012, the United States imported $5.7 billion in fabric and $1.4 billion in yarn.That year the United States exported $8.5 billion in fabric and $5.1 billion in yarn.Data is from the U.S.Commerce Department, International Trade Administration, O.ce of Textiles and Apparel, http://otexa.ita.doc.gov/msrpoint.htm.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.704380448e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]