It's nice to see that Casey Mulligan and Paul Krugman<http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-letter-to-paul-krugman.html> agree on something, even if it's only their shared unquestioning credulity toward a 233-year old zombie mind-reading hoax.
Dean Baker calls attention to an Economix blog post at the New York Times in which Mulligan discussed "What Job-Sharing Brings."<http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/what-job-sharing-brings/> Mulligan opens his remarks with a classic paraphrase of the lump-of-labor fallacy canard, omitting only the "lump-of-labor fallacy" brand name: The idea behind work-sharing is that employers have a certain amount of work that needs to be done, and that the work can be divided by many employees working a few hours each or a few employees working many hours each. If hours per employee could be limited, by this logic employers would have to hire more employees to get the same amount of work done. Let's make this as simple as possible. Professor Mulligan doesn't know what "the idea behind work-sharing is." He has no way of knowing. He presents no evidence of any advocate of work-sharing saying that is the idea behind it. This is a bogus assertion and everything that follows is null and void because *when you make up things about what other people supposedly think, it doesn't much matter what reasons you give for showing that they are wrong *. If people didn't say those things, you have no reason for supposing they thought them... continued at: http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/05/lumps-of-mulligan-and-specter-of.html -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
