Talk:Iron law of wages

message: It's been a month, so I'm merging the articles now. 72.66.123.16 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Now that you've marged the articles, should you not remove the tag suggesting the articles be merged? Gladmax 12:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the merger was done a while ago, but the proposer did not remove the tag, and since he/she used the wrong merger tag (the one here should have been ) it was hard to tell from the history exactly what transpired, but I think it's fixed at this point, and I removed the tag. --MCB 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove tag 

message: I see that it says that David Ricardo's "attribution is disputed," but I do not see that anywhere elsewhere. My instincts are to usually to trust Wikipedia, but my textbooks seem to imply that Ricardo alone proposed the theory, which would be a pretty significant difference from the text here, which implies that he merely added to Lassalle's work (and even different significantly from it). I can find seldom few Google hits about both Ferdinand Lassalle and the Iron Law of Wages outside of Wikipedia mirror sites, and those that do seem to mention that Lassalle based his work on "the Iron Law of Wages formulated by Ricardo" or something to that effect. Also, the wiki on Ferdinand Lassalle does not even mention "wages," much less this naming and popularization. If this is true (which it certainly could be, as I know little about this), there should be an explanation as to why there are so few other sites that make the connection. Any evidence should be cited and the nature of this "dispute" should be clarified, so that future readers find the content here consistent with writings elsewhere. 71.176.195.172 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution to Ferdinand Lassalle

message: The phrase "Iron Law of Wages" seems much more common than "subsistance theory of wages".  Why was the latter name chosen for the article? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: First, thank you for your excellent edit.
I also agree that the title of the article should be Iron Law of Wages.  The only reason I reverted the move was the question of capitalization.  This article, and the Britannica article on the same subject, and every other source I've read, use capital rather than lower case letters for the law.  While Wikipedia does not routinely capitalize words in article titles, it does capitalize proper nouns, which the Iron Law of Wages apparently is, based on the sources.
Here, for example, Britannica: "English economist who gave systematized, classical form to the rising science of economics in the 19th century. His laissez-faire doctrines were typified in his Iron Law of Wages, which stated that all attempts to improve the real income of workers were futile and that wages perforce remained near the subsistence level."
Do you have any objection to making the move to "Iron Law of Wages" instead of "Iron law of wages"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: other comment: it should be capitalized as Rick indicates as it is a proper noun: name of a particular person, place or thing. Hmains (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit and move 

message: Good edit, 212.56.97.238 Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  212.56.97.238 's edit 

message: I believe the efficiency wages explanation is incorrect. As that article points out, the motivation for setting efficiency wages (i.e. wages above market clearing price) is to have a level of unemployment so as to discourage shirking, prevent worker turnover or select among potential employees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnob1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency wages explanation incorrect