rms have a marginal labor productivity equals zero due to family working together; therefore having disguised unemployment. Secondly, the average productivity of labor is constant, which would only be true if his first assumption is true. If a whole family works together in a farm then there will be an equal distribution of profit or share even though some might have not worked at all. This would only happen if I have disguised unemployment. Thirdly, is that a country must have efficient productive entrepreneurs, they can make profit. And finally, lewis assumed that the labor's increase in wages would not be consumed. To further explain Lewis's theory it would take years, but lets just illustrate each point as we go through its opposition.
             The theory might sound reasonable, yet simple, and might have reflected some of the west's strategic plans that has been made, such as some countries in Europe and also the United States. First of all is that Lewis's two sector model might satisfy country with high per capita income such as those of the west mentioned, but less developing countries such as Egypt and India would not get along with this due to their low per capita income. However, starting to evaluate the theory intimately, first, we would consider the surplus of labor assumption, disguised unemployment. The argument stated that I have extra workers than I need in agriculture so I will take them from agriculture to industry, from rural to urban, to change the marginal labor productivity from negative or zero to positive. To estimate this, they use an indirect method by stating the number of workers requires to do certain
             ...