Please be a little less Zen. What is the "lump of labor" fallacy? Ok no one actually believed it; but what is it that no one actually believed.
Tom Walker wrote: > Editor, the Wall Street Journal, > > In a bold effort to vaccinate Americans against the insidious lump-of-labor > virus, the Wall Street Journal today carries an article by one Christopher > Rhoads headlined, "Europe's Prized Leisure Life Becomes Economic Obstacle." > The analytical nub appears in a paragraph located almost midway through the > piece: > > "Enter the shorter working week. Unions argued that reduced hours would spur > job growth by spreading the same amount of work among more people. Most > economists dismissed the theory, but some argued it could force Europeans to > become more efficient, squeezing more work into less time. > > "Neither turned out to be true." > > What Mr. Rhoads neglects to inform his readers is that the preceding is a > formulaic set piece, the prototype of which first appeared in an 1871 > Quarterly Review article by Mr. J. Wilson entitled "Economic Fallacies and > Labour Utopias." The formula was perfected in a 1901 screed featured in the > London Times under the headline, "The Crisis in British Industry." From 1903 > to 1913 -- when a congressional investigation brought their activities to > light -- the National Association of Manufacturers spared no expense of > political bribery, financial extortion and physical intimidation to inscribe > the same message as the common sense consensus of all sane, sober, > self-respecting economists everywhere. > > In short, Mr. Rhoads' paragraph is a hoary slander. What is more, if there > can be such a thing as plagiarizing slander, the paragraph -- fraudulently > represented as Mr. Rhoads' own observation of some recent "argument" about > "spreading the same amount of work" and the subsequent "dismissal" of the > "theory" by "most economists" -- is a plagiary. > > Although Rhoads discretely omits the tell-tale term, the drill often passes > under the sobriquet of "the lump-of-labor fallacy". It was a mainstay in > Paul Samuelson's Economics through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s even though > the Nobel Prize winning textbook author has subsequently been unable to > account for its source or validity. > > Speaking of fraud, why doesn't Mr. Rhoads write an article advocating > accounting fraud as a boost to global competitiveness? Perhaps he could even > crib a few passages in support of his case (sans acknowledgement, naturally) > from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. > > Tom Walker > 604 254 0470 > > >
