In an earlier article we used archival and printed primary sources to construct the first long‐run wage series for hand spinning in early modern Britain. This evidence challenged Robert Allen's claim that spinners were part of the ‘high wage economy’, which he sees as motivating invention, innovation, and mechanization in the spinning section of the textile industry. We respond to Allen's subsequent criticism of our argument, sources, and methods, and his presentation of alternative evidence. Allen contends that we have understated both the earnings and associated productivity of hand spinners by focusing on part‐time and low‐quality workers. His rejoinder rests on an ahistorical account of spinners’ work and similarly weak evidence on wages as did his initial claims. Our augmented version of the spinners’ wages dataset confirms our original findings. Spinners’ wages were low even compared with other women workers, and neither wages nor the piece rates that determined unit labour costs followed a trajectory that could explain the invention and spread of the spinning jenny.

中文翻译：

---

失去话题：对罗伯特·艾伦的回应

在较早的文章中，我们使用档案和印刷的主要资源来构建了现代早期英国第一个用于手纺的长期工资系列。这一证据对罗伯特·艾伦的主张提出质疑，罗伯特·艾伦声称纺纱厂是“高工资经济”的一部分，他认为纺纱厂是纺织工业纺纱领域的发明，创新和机械化的动力。我们回应了艾伦随后对我们的论点，来源和方法的批评，以及他提出的其他证据。艾伦（Allen）认为，通过关注兼职和低质量工人，我们低估了手纺纱厂的收入和相关生产率。他的拒绝基于对纺纱厂工作的历史记载，以及关于工资的薄弱证据，就像他最初的主张一样。我们的微调器工资数据集的增强版本证实了我们的原始发现。纺纱厂的工资甚至比其他女工都要低，而且确定单位人工成本的工资和计件工资都没有遵循可以解释纺纱詹妮的发明和传播的轨迹。