Ezra Klein, a writer for the American Prospect, has an interesting post on uncompetitive and exploitative labor markets- a significant cause of inequality. Sadly, the best thing written on the blog today didn't come from me. Rather, it's a comment from Kathy G. arguing that labor markets don't look much like classical assumptions would suggest, and that the data -- and some emergent theory -- offers evidence that they're closer to a monopsony than the more traditional competitive-market-in-equilibrium model. Full comment below the fold: Anyone who thinks mandated leave would inevitably lead to a decrease in employment or wages most likely has not taken any econ beyond Econ 101. Because if you believe that such results would inevitably follow, you clearly are not familiar with the empirical research on paid leave, nor do you understand economic theory beyond a very superficial and incomplete level.

People who downplay inequality are like the cranks who don't believe in global warming. They find evidence on the margin that is supposed to cast doubt on the macrophenomenon. They bob and weave, admit this exists, but say we can't do anything about it, etc. etc. David Brooks is inequality's equivalent of the American Petroleum Institute. His column ($) today provides a fine example of the type of sophistry he peddles. Let's examine: First, pile on the studies that downplay inequality, so you seem like you know what you're talking about and overwhelm your audience. The first complicating fact is that after a lag, average wages are rising sharply. Real average wages rose by 2 percent in 2006, the second fastest rise in 30 years.

An interesting article on unions, via the great blog Economist's View. Its thesis is that the decline in unionization is a product of a wide array of legislative and regulatory changes. The upshot is that much more than laws like the Employee Free Choice Act may be necessary to substantially increase union membership. Even more interesting, the article finishes with the dreaded "e" word (exploitation) as the basis of promoting unionization.

An interesting article from this weekend's New York Times that let's the wealthy share their views on why they're so rich. Other very wealthy men in the new Gilded Age talk of themselves as having a flair for business not unlike Derek Jeter's "unique talent" for baseball, as Leo J. Hindery Jr. put it. "I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career," Mr. Hindery said, "who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear."