1. Classical theory: "Every man" will pursue his interest and therefore seek the advantageous employment. This will cause disadvantageous employment to need workers and therefore rise to parity with advantageous employment.

NOTE: Not just wages but the whole of advantageous and disadvantageous.

2. Empiricists' criticisms: 1) wage difference plays very small role; 2) workers often ignorant of job alternatives; 3) workers value security highly; 4) workers do not seem to calculate net advantages or act rationally in choosing jobs. Empiricists claim Rottenberg tautology and statements can't be refuted empirically because untestable. Because how can subjective net advantages be objectively measured.

3. Empiricists have verifiable predictions but derived inductively from observations and lack capacity for general use, which is properly derived from theoretical systems. Economics as analytical system can only predict consequences of policy, not choose best policy. (Lampman said the same.) Says core of Lampman criticism: are predictions of classical verifiable? Many derived predictions are unverifiable but claims Lampman overselective in just choosing those predictions which are unverifiable. Goes into logically consequential though not verifiable.

4. Lampman's criticisms are valid: You can't discredit one convention by establishing another as useful says both R. and empiricists did this. Says argument unfruitful.

5. Who got best: Lampman because tries to point way to positive theory and prediction.

6. Rottenberg answered by changing questions to those he could answer, so no.
return to books