> > "We all cannot believe that we have been fighting this theory for more > than 150 years," said April Yanyuan Wu, a research economist at the Center > for Retirement Research at Boston College, who co-authored a paper last > year on the subject.
I've forwarded to Sedensky my correspondence with April Wu from Sept. 2012 that I will paste below. Makes me wonder if "Wu" is short for "Woo-woo." I wrote to Gruber in March of 2012 advising him that one of the chapters in a book he co-edited had plagiarized from my work and never received a reply. What a bunch of bottom-feeders! On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Tom Walker wrote Dear Alicia and April, > Having done extensive research on the lump-of-labor fallacy claim and > published three papers on it, I would have hoped that propagation of the > myth would have died out. But no. Finding no evidence that there is not a > fixed amount of work is about as challenging as finding no evidence that > the sun rises in the West. However, it misses two key elements of the > issue. First, who ever claimed that the sun rises in the West? And second > -- as you no doubt are aware -- the sun doesn't actually "rise" (even in > the East) -- it's the rotation of the earth that from a vantage point on > earth creates an appearance of rising. > The summary of your paper by the Pew Economic Mobility Project refers to a > host of increases in Boomer employment being "associated with" increases in > youth employment or hourly wages. I was taught the expression "correlation > doesn't imply causation" and there is nothing in that summary that would > lead me to believe you put forward any more sophisticated causal > explanation in your paper. I would be interested in reading the paper to > see if that is indeed the case. In exchange, I would be happy to share with > you my published research papers on the 232-year old lump-of-labor fallacy > canard. > Cheers, > Tom Walker On 19/09/2012 1:14 PM, April Wu wrote: HI, Tom, > > Thanks very much for your email and I am glad to hear that our results are > consistent with those of your work. > > The short brief published by the Pew only reflects a small fraction of our > work. In the paper, we do explore the causal relationship by using the > instrumental variable approach. I have attached our working paper for your > reference. > > Feel free to let us know if you have any questions. > > Best, > > April On 19/09/2012 4:08 PM, Tom Walker wrote: Hi April, > Thanks for your reply. I guess I was entirely too subtle in my criticisms. > What I'm trying to say is that this "lump-of-labor fallacy" business is a > red-herring and a distraction from the real policy issues. You say in your > paper that "opponents of free trade, technological advance and immigration > often use the lump of labor argument to make people fearful about losing > their jobs." There are three things wrong with that statement. First, if > such "opponents" "often use" the argument where are your citations of these > "opponents" using the argument? Second, you characterize trade and > technology in blatantly ideological terms that mask the special interests > that benefit from particular trade and technology policies. Not all trade > agreements are "free" nor are all uses of technology "advances." Third, you > imply that people would not be fearful about losing their jobs were it not > for these nefarious "opponents." > Your empirical results are unsurprising. You are shooting fish in a > barrel. But the question is why would you be shooting THOSE fish in THAT > barrel? There are important policy questions having to do with youth > unemployment and old-age pensions that have nothing whatsoever to do with > imaginary lumps of labor. Instead of addressing those issues you set up and > knock down a straw man. Why? > I'm attaching a conference paper I wrote last year on the ethical > dimension of this lump-of-labor canard. I'm also attaching my 2007 article > from the Review of Social Economy. It is interesting that you cite Schloss > and Mayhew in your paper. I believe that my earlier article (2000) was a > pioneer in bringing those sources to light. I have recently come across a > parallel discussion in the field of Anthropology about what George Foster > termed the "Image of Limited Good" in a 1965 article. Unlike the groupthink > that prevails in Economics, Anthropologists found quite a bit to criticize > in Foster's theory. I suppose I can use your paper as an "object lesson" > for my next critical survey that will seek to carry over the > Anthropological critique into Economics. > Cheers, > Tom On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > There is _always_ a job for a journalist who will trot out this story and > interview economists who understand nothing. Tom Walker can correct him on > his date of 1851 but this journalist refuses to be corrected on what he and > most economists know. Galbraith tried and failed. > > Will surge of older workers take jobs from young? > By MATT SEDENSKY > Associated Press > Published: Friday, Jan. 3, 2014 - 9:09 am > Last Modified: Friday, Jan. 3, 2014 - 1:29 pm > CHICAGO -- It's an assertion that has been accepted as fact by droves of > the unemployed: Older people remaining on the job later in life are > stealing jobs from young people. > > One problem, many economists say: It isn't supported by a wisp of fact. > > "We all cannot believe that we have been fighting this theory for more > than 150 years," said April Yanyuan Wu, a research economist at the Center > for Retirement Research at Boston College, who co-authored a paper last > year on the subject. > > > > > > Why are economists always so burdened with denying this, as they have been > denying it forever? > > > The theory Wu and other economists are fighting is known as "lump of > labor," and it has maintained traction in the U.S., particularly in a > climate of high unemployment. The theory dates to 1851 and says if a group > enters the labor market — or in this case, remains in it beyond their > normal retirement date — others will be unable to gain employment or will > have their hours cut. > > > > It's a line of thinking that has been used in the U.S. immigration > debate and in Europe to validate early retirement programs, and it relies > on a simple premise: That there are a fixed number of jobs available. In > fact, most economists dispute this. When women entered the workforce, there > weren't fewer jobs for men. The economy simply expanded. > > > > > > Read more here: > http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/03/6044167/will-surge-of-older-workers-take.html#storylink=cpy > > > Galbraith refutes them. > > > Still, many remain unconvinced. > > > > James Galbraith, a professor of government at the University of Texas at > Austin, has advocated for a temporary lowering of the age to qualify for > Social Security and Medicare to allow older workers who don't want to > remain on the job a way to exit and to spur openings for younger workers. > > > > He doesn't buy the comparison of older workers to women entering the > workforce and says others' arguments on older workers expanding the economy > don't make sense when there are so many unemployed people. If there was a > surplus of jobs, he said, there would be no problem with people working > longer. But there isn't. > > > > "I can't imagine how you could refute that. The older worker retires, > the employer looks around and hires another worker," he said. "It's like > refuting elementary arithmetic." > > > > > > > > but the journalist persists, and finds > Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology > who edited a book on the subject for the National Bureau of Economic > Research, said it's a frustrating reality of his profession: That those > things he knows as facts are disputed by the populace. > > Economists are so firm in denial of jobs being hard to find because to > admit otherwise is to concede the market isn't working to always keep > workers fully employed. The market not working, you say? Impossible. > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
