by the Sandwichman
Further to the lump of laffer revelation:
Dear Mr Walker
Of course I know the "lump of labour fallacy" is hogwash. I actually state that it's fallacious. Please read the article more carefully before you go blasting off to the Telegraph!
Ruth Lea
--------------
Dear Ms. Lea,
Thank you so much for your response to my message. I am afraid, however, that you have read my letter entirely too hastily and are mistaken. I am saying that your claim that reduced worktime policies are based on a fallacious belief in a lump of labour is hogwash. You do indeed imply that you know the claim is hogwash by calling the lump-of-labour fallacy "one of economists' favorite conceits" -- which would be to say the "fallacy" is an affectation of economists, not a true reflection of the beliefs of people who propose reduced worktime policies -- but I'm sure that seeming admission was inadvertent.
Your confusion no doubt arises from the awkward, archaic terminology of the so-called fallacy, so I will rephrase the matter in plain, contemporary English. You say that the French 35-hour work week was based on the notion that there is a fixed amount of work. That is wrong. The French policy was not based on any such notion. This is not to say that there may not have been some supporters who made the error, or that each and every slogan painstakingly pointed out that the amount of work was not fixed. It is simply to say that the economists who developed the policy were not a bunch of ignoramuses, as your claim would suggest.
Again, I would offer to send you a copy of my recent article and/or my article from 2000 detailing what is wrong with the fallacy claim (please note the word "claim"). Or, if you prefer, you may download them from the following URLs:
The 'Lump of Labor' Case against Work-sharing: Populist fallacy or Marginalist throwback? (2000)
Why Economists Dislike a Lump of Labor (2006)
Respectfully,
Tom Walker
Posted by sandwichman at February 21, 2006 07:15 AM