A reply to Paul C's 2316.
Sorry I took so long. It's because I haven't read my email for a week,
due to this and that. In my 1988 RRPE paper, and in the Okishio paper
in the Freeman & Carchedi volume, I assume a constant real wage. It
can take on a value of zero, among others. In some other contexts
I assume a zero real wage, e.g. in the recent discussion with Duncan
and in my EEA paper this year. Why? Not because it is realistic,
not because Marx assumes it, not because his law of the FRP needs it,
not because a refutation of Okishio requires it. Simply because it
simplifies things in certain contexts where the generality isn't
necessary.
Andrew