We analyze Schumpeterian entrepreneurship within a general equilibrium model of a competitive economy patterned after Lucas. All individuals have access to exogenously growing knowledge. Those who acquire sufficient knowledge become entrepreneurs. If learning is only a function of ability, the faster the progress, the fewer the entrepreneurs, and the higher their pay relative to workers' wages. If knowledge is only a function of lifetime, the faster the progress is, the earlier the entry will be into the entrepreneurial group. When age and ability are considered together, the individuals (if any) who become entrepreneurs with faster progress are younger and more able than those (if any) who drop out of the group.

Labor allocation and wage-scale formation are studied in the context of competitive hierarchic firms. We show that (1) the wage per effective laborer and his quality increase with the hierarchical position of the employee, and (2) up to a point, the imposition of a minimum wage for production labor increases the quality and quantity of production workers and reduces the wage, quality, and number of supervisors. These results help to explain the skewness of income distribution, and the wage differentials across layers which are inexplicable in terms of differences in labor quality and difficulty of tasks.

Labor allocation and wage-scale formation are studied in the context of competitive hierarchic firms. We show that (1) the wage per effective laborer and his quality increase with the hierarchical position of the employee, and (2) up to a point, the imposition of a minimum wage for production labor increases the quality and quantity of production workers and reduces the wage, quality, and number of supervisors. These results help to explain the skewness of income distribution, and the wage differentials across layers which are inexplicable in terms of differences in labor quality and difficulty of tasks.

We show that limitation of firm size caused by loss of control across hierarchic levels depends crucially on the nature of the supervision process. If the employees cannot identify the times at which their performance is monitored, there is no limit imposed on the firm size by the heights of the hierarchical structure. "Loss of control" may impose such a limit if the employees are aware of the times at which they are being monitored. The analysis also shows the rationale for hierarchical wage differentials for essentially identical employees.

We show that limitation of firm size caused by loss of control across hierarchic levels depends crucially on the nature of the supervision process. If the employees cannot identify the times at which their performance is monitored, there is no limit imposed on the firm size by the heights of the hierarchical structure. "Loss of control" may impose such a limit if the employees are aware of the times at which they are being monitored. The analysis also shows the rationale for hierarchical wage differentials for essentially identical employees.