I do wish the life-style beauties of France were only an hour away from
Washington, DC, my home. A high-speed "Oceannel" is defintitely needed....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 4:06 AM
> To: Lawrence DeBivort
> Subject: RE: clippings on the 35-hour week
>
>
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> At 15:00 23/06/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >I am surprised by the rosy picture being offered of the 35-hour week in
> >France: I was there not too long ago and found widespread
> anxiety about its
> >effects. Combined with other French policies, such as those that make it
> >difficult for a business owner to go out of business, the 35-hour week
> >creates significant problems (e.g. in France, the reduction of hours to a
> >35-hour week was not accompanied by a comparable reduction in wages, thus
> >raising the costs of producing goods and services considerably).
> Given the
> >continuing general labor problems in France (e.g. the incidence
> of multiple
> >labor strikes in Paris) one should be cautious about endorsing
> any part of
> >their labor policies.
> >
> >One consequence of these problems is the steady emigration of young,
> >promising and energetic French entrepreneurs to, among other places, the
> >USA.
>
> All very true. Small French firms are pouring across the channel and
> incorporating themselves, and working, as English companies themselves in
> Kent (so they can get back home at the week-end). (Conversely, I know
> someone who has an English incorporated bsuiness but works from France,
> 'cos he has a marvellous house of chateau proportions which he couldn't
> possibly afford to buy in England.)
>
> Why don't you copy your message into Futurework?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Lawrence de Bivort
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 1:14 PM
> >> To: Tom Walker
> >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: clippings on the 35-hour week
> >>
> >>
> >> At 07:22 23/06/01 -0700, Tom Walker wrote an extensive reply
> to my message
> >> -- and almost immediate too!
> >>
> >> I won't comment at anywhere near the same length because, as
> you say, we
> >> differ and are not likely to persuade each other.
> >>
> >> I'll just make the point here that I'm surprised that you even
> bothered to
> >> look for a source of the "lump of labour fallacy" (except in
> so far that
> >> there was probably was a single creator of the phrase, "lump
> of labour")
> >> because it's not a theory that anybody would advance (unlike
> Piltdown Man
> >> hoax). It simple describes a fallacious way of thinking. And, like many
> >> other fallacious ways of thinking, it is pretty widespread.
> >>
> >> And there's another similar fallacy which you are guilty of when
> >> you write:
> >>
> >> (TW)
> >> >About a third of the people working part-time say they would
> >> rather have a
> >> >full-time job but can't find one and many of the people working
> >> long hours
> >> >would gladly forgo income for more time off. So what happens
> >> when unions or
> >> >social activists suggest that perhaps we could solve both dilemmas and
> >> >reduce unemployment in the bargain by redistributing the
> hours of work --
> >> >perhaps even try something like the 35-hour work week brought in
> >> recently by
> >> >the French government?
> >> >
> >> >What happens is we're scolded by financial commentators and think-tank
> >> >experts like Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute that to
> even consider
> >> >such a thing is proof of "economic ignorance".
> >>
> >> This could be called the "equivalence of labour fallacy" --
> that is, that
> >> the skills of those who complain of overwork could be easily
> supplied by
> >> those who work part-time (or who are unemployed) and would like to work
> >> full-time.
> >>
> >> So let's leave it there and hope that someone else might like to
> >> take part.
> >>
> >> Keith Hudson
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> :
> >> >Keith Hudson wrote,
> >> >
> >> >>It's no use throwing confrontational language at me -- in
> rows of upper
> >> >>case words or not.
> >> >
> >> >The "confrontational language" was a slightly modified quote
> >> from David F.
> >> >Schloss (in the original he referred specifically to the
> "length of the
> >> >working day" rather than generally to the "hours of work"
> >> because the issue
> >> >was the 8-hour day and not the 35-hour week). I'm not throwing
> >> any language
> >> >at YOU, Keith. I'm all too familiar with your style of
> argument. I'm only
> >> >replying to you on the off chance that someone else will
> eavesdrop on the
> >> >(non)conversation.
> >> >
> >> >>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 can explain the case in simple language that ordinary folk can
> >> understand
> >> >(and I will below) but it is hard for anyone, ordinary or not to
> >> grasp the
> >> >rather remarkable finding that a "scientific discipline"
> >> (economics) turned
> >> >its back on its own established theoretical tradition and
> >> instead embraced a
> >> >flimsy piece of anti-trade union propaganda from a discredited source.
> >> >That's the plain case.
> >> >
> >> >It took 54 years for the Piltdown man to be edited out of the
> >> "evolutionary
> >> >chain" and even longer for Cyril Burt's twin studies to be
> recognized as
> >> >forgeries. In simple language, the "lump of labour fallacy" is a
> >> scientific
> >> >hoax.
> >> >
> >> >It's all very well to dismiss the plain case as a unsupported
> >> allegation and
> >> >to dismiss the deliberate presentation of a preponderance of
> evidence as
> >> >"sociological/academic type language". In addition to the "executive
> >> >summary", I've also got a popularization of the scholarly
> >> argument, which I
> >> >will copy at the end of this message.
> >> >
> >> >Now, you don't have to agree with what I say in the plain case, the
> >> >scholarly paper, the executive summary or the popularization.
> But please
> >> >don't attack the scholarly for not being popular and the
> popular for not
> >> >being scholarly; dismiss the nuanced as not being clear and the
> >> clear as not
> >> >being nuanced. It leaves me with no way of communicating.
> >> >
> >> >What is this "trick of referring to some authority somewhere
> else?" In my
> >> >chapter all my authorities and sources are carefully noted,
> >> which I suppose
> >> >you would object to as part of the "sociological/academic
> type language".
> >> >The funny part of this citation game is that in the course of my
> >> research I
> >> >have followed up on every citation (hundreds) of the lump-of-labour,
> >> >lump-of-work or lump-of-output fallacy that I could find through
> >> full text
> >> >searches of several journal databases and through index searches
> >> and visual
> >> >scans of textbooks and scholarly and popular books in the
> subject area. I
> >> >have also sent written enquiries to several "authorities" who
> themselves
> >> >cited the lump of labour fallacy as authoritative. I hunted down
> >> and ordered
> >> >photocopies from distant libraries so I could scrutinize obscure
> >> pamplets.
> >> >
> >> >Paul Samuelson, in a gracious letter, could offer no source for
> >> the lump of
> >> >labour fallacy he discussed in his textbook for fifty years.
> Evidently it
> >> >was just something he was taught in school and he duly passed it
> >> on without
> >> >questioning it. One of my respondents guessed that J.S. Mill was
> >> the source
> >> >of the expression and argument. Well, he wasn't but there is
> >> nevertheless an
> >> >interesting connection between Mill, the wages-fund doctrine and its
> >> >refutation and the lump-of-labour fallacy that I won't go into
> >> because it is
> >> >a digression.
> >> >
> >> >>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.
> >> >
> >> >No, by conviction you will remain unconvinced regardless.
> >> >
> >> >>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.
> >> >
> >> >There is nothing in the above paragraph that I dispute. I would only
> >> >emphasize that there is abundant "slack" in _most_ firms in
> the form of
> >> >inefficiently excess or deficient hours of work. (Yes, Keith too
> >> short hours
> >> >can also be inefficient). Part of Chapman's demonstration is
> that under
> >> >competitive conditions firms will tend to employ workers at
> hours of work
> >> >that are longer than would be optimal. In the context of
> extensive fringe
> >> >benefits and capped payroll taxes, Chapman's theory would have to be
> >> >modified to include another tendency for firms to employ
> workers at hours
> >> >that are shorter than optimal. No, the two tendencies don't
> "cancel each
> >> >other out." They are non-continuous and apply to different
> >> classifications
> >> >of 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.
> >> >
> >> >Think of it as a reciprocating process -- technical improvements
> >> create the
> >> >conditions (fatigue, increased output, unemployment) for
> shorter hours of
> >> >work and the reduced hours of work in turn create an incentive (labour
> >> >scarcity, upward wage pressure) for introducing further technical
> >> >improvements, which in turn create a demand for further
> reductions in the
> >> >hours of labour and so on... It is a dynamic process that
> lays the golden
> >> >egg, not one side of it. The claim of a "lump of labour
> fallacy" implies
> >> >that the reduction of the hours of work has no place in the
> >> dynamic process.
> >> >There would be a lump of labour fallacy if advocates of
> shorter work time
> >> >took the view that is falsely ascribed to them, but they don't.
> >> >
> >> >>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 . . . ?
> >> >
> >> >Gee, that's a real toughie. ;-) Let's say you're driving along the
> >> >expressway at 40 kilometres an hour and the speed limit is
> 80. I tell you
> >> >you would be safer and get where you're going quicker to drive
> >> at 80. Well,
> >> >if what I say is true why wouldn't you be even safer at 90 or
> 100 or 120?
> >> >
> >> >The relationship between hours, output and hourly productivity
> >> is expressed
> >> >by a curve, not a straight line. That means, given a particular set of
> >> >technical conditions, productivity first increases with an
> >> increase in the
> >> >hours worked and then, after a certain point decreases (BTW
> >> Chapman's curve
> >> >and his explanation of it are available on my website at
> >> >http://www.vcn.bc.ca/worksite.htm).
> >> >
> >> >During the time that productivity increases and part of the time
> >> that it is
> >> >decreasing, total output also increases. However there also
> >> comes a point on
> >> >the curve where any further increase in total output during
> the current
> >> >period is at the cost of a decrease in the subsequent period.
> >> Just think of
> >> >how much output you will produce the day after working a
> 24-hour shift.
> >> >
> >> >Admittedly it is simpler to think of the relationship between hours,
> >> >productivity and output as a straight line and I apologize for the
> >> >difficulty introduced by the requirement of thinking in curves.
> >> >
> >> >There are also complexities introduced by the intricacies of
> >> adjusting to a
> >> >new regime of hours from an old one. It could be that
> "ideally" a 25-hour
> >> >week would be more efficient and create more jobs than a 35-hour
> >> week, once
> >> >it was in place. But the cost of getting there might be more than a
> >> >particular society could afford at one time. In the early
> 19th century,
> >> >typical hours of work ranged up to 70 hours a week. In the
> 1950s people
> >> >produced much greater total output in 40 hours. That doesn't
> >> mean, though,
> >> >that a 40 hour week in 1830 would have been more productive than
> >> a 70 hour
> >> >week.
> >> >
> >> >Below is the popularization I mentioned:
> >> >
> >> >Remembrance of Work Time Standards Lost
> >> >
> >> >Twenty-five years ago, two-thirds of the Canadian work force worked a
> >> >standard 35 to 40 hour a week. And they received a full-time pay
> >> cheque with
> >> >holiday and vacation pay for doing so.
> >> >
> >> >By 1995, the proportion of the work-force working standard hours had
> >> >declined to a bare majority. Many of the rest of us have migrated to
> >> >part-time jobs with substandard pay and benefits or to long
> hours of work
> >> >often without compensation for overtime.
> >> >
> >> >About a third of the people working part-time say they would
> >> rather have a
> >> >full-time job but can't find one and many of the people working
> >> long hours
> >> >would gladly forgo income for more time off. So what happens
> >> when unions or
> >> >social activists suggest that perhaps we could solve both dilemmas and
> >> >reduce unemployment in the bargain by redistributing the
> hours of work --
> >> >perhaps even try something like the 35-hour work week brought in
> >> recently by
> >> >the French government?
> >> >
> >> >What happens is we're scolded by financial commentators and think-tank
> >> >experts like Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute that to
> even consider
> >> >such a thing is proof of "economic ignorance". According to
> National Post
> >> >columnist Peter Foster, for example, the French 35-hour policy
> >> is based on a
> >> >"fundamental economic misunderstanding known as the
> >> 'lump-of-labor fallacy'."
> >> >
> >> >What the heck is a "lump of labor" and why did I spend the
> last two years
> >> >studying and writing about it? The simple answer is that the
> >> lump of labor
> >> >is a "theory" that isn't a theory; it is an "economic fallacy"
> >> that is not
> >> >an economic fallacy.
> >> >
> >> >Like the chemically-aged skull of a modern man and jawbone of an
> >> orangutan
> >> >dug up at Piltdown, England in 1911, the lump-of-labor fallacy is a
> >> >scientific hoax. Unlike the counterfeit missing link, however, the
> >> >lump-of-labor fallacy may be making our work lives miserable --
> >> eroding our
> >> >job security, piling up our workload, gobbling our pay cheques
> >> and spoiling
> >> >our weekends.
> >> >
> >> >You don't need to know exactly what the lump-of-labor fallacy
> is or says.
> >> >It's a relic of sheer nonsense that has been reverently
> handed down from
> >> >generation to generation of mainstream economists. If you insist
> >> on learning
> >> >the details, you can read my chapter debunking the lump-of-labor
> >> claim in a
> >> >recent scholarly volume on working time.
> >> >
> >> >What you DO need to know is that mainstream economists have
> >> completely blown
> >> >the issue of working time. There once was an economic theory of
> >> the hours of
> >> >labor, a very good theory indeed presented by Sir Sydney Chapman -- an
> >> >esteemed and excruciatingly orthodox Cambridge economist -- in
> >> Winnipeg in
> >> 1909.
> >> >
> >> >Economics, as it is taught at universities, has managed to
> "lose" its own
> >> >theory, though. It's in the library, but few economists bother
> >> to look for
> >> >it there. Instead they look in their textbooks, where the
> theory isn't.
> >> >
> >> >During the 1950s and 1960s the most widely-used introductory
> textbook in
> >> >first year economics courses across North America was a book
> >> affectionately
> >> >known as "Samuelson". Its official title was Economics: An
> >> Introduction by
> >> >Paul Samuelson.
> >> >
> >> >Edition after revised edition of that ubiquitous textbook
> >> carried a breezy
> >> >discussion of why union demands or policy proposals for
> shorter hours of
> >> >work -- though admittedly well-intentioned -- are hare-brained
> >> panaceas not
> >> >worth considering seriously. Why? Because they are based on
> the venerable
> >> >lump-of-labor fallacy.
> >> >
> >> >The claim makes about as much sense as saying that caring about
> >> nutrition is
> >> >based on a lump-of-food fallacy or that personal hygiene is based on a
> >> >lump-of-soap fallacy. That hasn't prevented financial page
> >> editorialists and
> >> >business lobbyists from banging the fallacy gong any time a
> shorter work
> >> >time proposal makes it onto the agenda of public debate. I
> first read the
> >> >phrase in a column written by Jock Finlayson, vice president for
> >> research of
> >> >the B.C. Business Council, who invoked it several times in the
> >> mid-1990s to
> >> >ward off the grim spectre of Jeremy Rifkin's The End of Work.
> >> >
> >> >The bottom line is North America is choking from overwork,
> >> underemployment
> >> >and just plain misallocation of working time. Governments are
> loath to do
> >> >anything about it, because they're afraid that if they do, corporate
> >> >lobbyists and financial page editorialists will humiliate them
> >> with mocking
> >> >cries of "fallacy" and "panacea".
> >> >
> >> >As I mentioned earlier, you don't need to know what the lump-of-labor
> >> >fallacy is. All you need to know is that something is profoundly
> >> wrong with
> >> >the way that the hours of work are being regulated -- subtly and
> >> >unofficially being de-regulated, really -- in North America
> and that the
> >> >arguments against doing something about it are utterly groundless.
> >> >
> >> >Isn't it about time we called the bluff of the textbook-thumping
> >> experts who
> >> >seem to think that a toxic cocktail of overwork and
> >> underemployment is "good
> >> >for the economy"? Isn't it about time we buried the bogus
> lump-of-labor
> >> >fallacy alongside the remains of that other scientific hoax,
> the Piltdown
> >> Man?
> >> >
> >> >------------------
> >> >
> >> >Tom Walker is a social policy analyst and advocate of shorter working
> >> >time. His chapter on "The 'lump-of-labor' case against
> >> work-sharing" is in
> >> >_Working Time: International trends, theory and policy perspectives_
> >> >edited by Lonnie Golden and Deborah Figart, published by Routledge.
> >> >Tom Walker
> >> >Bowen Island, BC
> >> >604 947 2213
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ___________________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> 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]
> >>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> 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]
> ________________________________________________________________________
