economic interests of labor and business groups are affected by different levels of ILM. Furthermore,the model indicates the implications different levels of labor mobility will have on the cohesiveness among different types of factor owners and their political support for partisan governments. Relationship (1)above informs us that higher labor mobility (n is associated with a convergence of wage income among otherwise similar labor owners across industries,thus a dynamically more equitable labor income distribution (or higher labor solidarity).In other words,with an increase of labor mobility,changes of wage in sector 1 will be more in sync with changes of wage in sector 2,thus workers employed in either sector 1 or sector 2 will be in more stable economic relations relative to one another;no groups of workers can improve their incomes relative to the other groups by simply being employed in some specific industry.The increase of ILM makes workers' income be determined more by the general labor market skills of the workers over anything else.Higher ILM hence correlates with higher labor class solidarity,meaning the dynamic convergence of wages among similarly skilled workers.As a result,labor class cohesiveness will monotonically improve with increases of ILM levels. Relationship(2)tells us that at the same time higher labor mobility correlates with a divergence of capital returns among similar capital assets across industries,thus lower levels of capital class solidarity.To put it in another way,this means that with an increase of labor mobility,changes of returns to capital in sector 1 will be more out of sync with changes of returns to capital in sector 2,thus capital owners in one industry can improve their economic positions relative to capital owners in the other industry by simply using their capital in the specific industry.The dynamically increasing difference of capitaleconomic interests of labor and business groups are affected by different levels of ILM. Furthermore, the model indicates the implications different levels of labor mobility will have on the cohesiveness among different types of factor owners and their political support for partisan governments. Relationship (1) above informs us that higher labor mobility ( L ) is associated with a convergence of wage income among otherwise similar labor owners across industries, thus a dynamically more equitable labor income distribution (or higher labor solidarity). In other words, with an increase of labor mobility, changes of wage in sector 1 will be more in sync with changes of wage in sector 2, thus workers employed in either sector 1 or sector 2 will be in more stable economic relations relative to one another; no groups of workers can improve their incomes relative to the other groups by simply being employed in some specific industry. The increase of ILM makes workers’ income be determined more by the general labor market skills of the workers over anything else. Higher ILM hence correlates with higher labor class solidarity, meaning the dynamic convergence of wages among similarly skilled workers. As a result, labor class cohesiveness will monotonically improve with increases of ILM levels. Relationship (2) tells us that at the same time higher labor mobility correlates with a divergence of capital returns among similar capital assets across industries, thus lower levels of capital class solidarity. To put it in another way, this means that with an increase of labor mobility, changes of returns to capital in sector 1 will be more out of sync with changes of returns to capital in sector 2, thus capital owners in one industry can improve their economic positions relative to capital owners in the other industry by simply using their capital in the specific industry. The dynamically increasing difference of capital