It doesn't seem to relate to this situation at all. I could only make it through about 15 pages due to the author's writing style.
Collusion for these firms was price-based collusion for products, not collusion to suppress the input costs of highly skilled labor. Manufacturers are said to have engaged in establishing minimum or fixed prices for their products.
Consumers will tend to absorb this form of market inefficiency. After the cartel agreements were broken, consumers reaped the benefits in the form of the "intensification of price competition" (lower prices).
It suggests that only in one case was there collusion in R&D, which might be a relevant example.
Additionally, the article cites outside competition from the USA as a factor. Competition from foreign sources on engineer wages such as India is still nascent. US manufacturing during this period was mature and robust.
Collusion for these firms was price-based collusion for products, not collusion to suppress the input costs of highly skilled labor. Manufacturers are said to have engaged in establishing minimum or fixed prices for their products.
Consumers will tend to absorb this form of market inefficiency. After the cartel agreements were broken, consumers reaped the benefits in the form of the "intensification of price competition" (lower prices).
It suggests that only in one case was there collusion in R&D, which might be a relevant example.
Additionally, the article cites outside competition from the USA as a factor. Competition from foreign sources on engineer wages such as India is still nascent. US manufacturing during this period was mature and robust.