On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Keith Hudson wrote:
> Despite the apparent success of the increase in employment in France as a
> result of a shorter working week of just over half the working population
> from 39 hours to 35 hours, I am not convinced that the "lump of labour
> fallacy" has been contradicted.
I'm afraid you should read my chapter, Keith. The "lump of labour
fallacy" had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOURS OF WORK. It was a cute turn of
phrase invented in the 1890s by David F. Schloss to describe _one_ of the
possible reasons that workers disliked piece-work. That parrot is dead.
If you won't be convinced by good theory (S.J. Chapman's) and won't be
convinced by corroborating evidence you will probably not be convinced by
EVEN STRONGER EVIDENCE. On second thought, you will probably not be
convinced, either, by an exhaustively researched demonstration that the
lump of labour fallacy proclaimed by mainstream economists has no
reputable SOURCE or basis in economic theory. It's called prejudice.
