I refer to Tom Walker's message:
It's no use throwing confrontational language at me -- in rows of upper
case words or not.
I did indeed go to the summary of your chapter, but didn't understand much
of it due to the sociological/academic type language. But it seems to me
that your argument (as in your message below) makes use of the trick of
referring to some authority somewhere else -- but never adequately explained.
If you can't explain your case in simple language that ordinary folk can
understand, weigh and consider, then I'm afraid I will continue to be
unconvinced and will rest upon a sensible interpretation of the facts.
I will repeat my message in simple terms in one paragraph and if you can't
reply to this in equally brief, simple terms without resorting to all sorts
of other inaccessible authorities, then I'll remain unconvinced.
<<<<
Reducing the working week can only extend employment in the case of a
particular business if: (a) the firm has enough "slack" to be able improve
its efficiency to compensate for the reduction in working hours by its
employees, and, (b) the market for its goods or services can be extended --
and thus be able to take on more employees.
>>>>
This will only apply to some businesses. Once these have become more
efficient and taken on more employees, then no more progress can be made
until entirely new technological processes are adopted by the firms
concerned. New processes don;t grow on trees. They only come along
episodically. The French government are now up against a brick wall (in the
case of firms of over 20 employees) and won't be able to produce more
empoyment.
I note that you haven't challenged my reductio ad impossibile argument.
I'll repeat it: If reducing the working week from 39 to 35 hours is so
successful in extending employment, why doesn't the French government
reduce the working week to 30 hours, or 25 hours, or 20 hours . . . ?
Keith Hudson
At 12:27 22/06/01 -0700, Tom Walker wrote:
>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.
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
