A growing body of empirical research has documented persistent divisions among American workers: divisions by race, sex, educational credentials, industry grouping, and so forth (F. B. Weisskoff, B. Bluestone, S. Bowles and H. Gintis, D. Gordon, 1971 and 1972, B. Harrison, M. Reich, H. Wachtel and C. Betsey, and H. Zellner). These groups seem to operate in different labor markets, with different working conditions, different promotional opportunities, different wages, and different market institutions. These continuing labor market divisions pose anomalies for neoclassical economists. Orthodox theory assumes that profitmaximizing employers evaluate workers in terms of their individual characteristics and predicts that labor market differences among groups will decline over time because of competitive mechanisms (K. Arrow). But by most measures, the labor market differences among groups have not been disappearing (R. Edwards, M. Reich, and T. Weisskopf, chs. 5, 7, 8). The continuing importance of groups in the labor market thus is neither explained nor predicted by orthodox theory. Why is the labor force in general still so fragmented? Why are group characteristics repeatedly so important in the labor market? In this paper, we sum-
[1]
H. Zellner.
Discrimination Against Women, Occupational Segregation, and the Relative Wage
,
1972
.
[2]
B. Harrison.
Education, training, and the urban ghetto
,
1972
.
[3]
Ira B. b. Cross,et al.
History of Labor in the United States
,
1918
.
[4]
B. Harrison,et al.
Labor Market Segmentation: Positive Feedback and Divergent Development
,
1973
.
[5]
Gordon S. Watkins,et al.
The Industrial Worker, 1840-1860.
,
1925
.
[6]
Robert T. Averitt.
The Dual Economy
,
1968
.
[7]
Stephen A. Marglin,et al.
What Do Bosses Do?
,
1974
.
[8]
John Kenneth Galbraith,et al.
The New Industrial State
,
1968
.
[9]
Michael J. Piore,et al.
Notes for a Theory of Labor Market Stratification
,
1972
.
[10]
Peter B. Doeringer,et al.
Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis
,
2020
.