Proposals to reduce unemployment by sharing the available work are routinely scoffed at as being based on a so-called 'lump of labour fallacy'. The Economist, for example, becomes notably agitated whenever the topic of reducing work time comes up. On two occasions (Nov. 25, 1995 and Oct. 25, 1997), the Economist used the identical heading, "One lump or two?" for articles ridiculing schemes to fight unemployment by reducing work time. Perhaps the headline was more apt than the Economist intended. The 'lump of labour fallacy' -- as used by the Economist -- is not one coherent fallacy but an odd pair of mutually exclusive objections grafted together like the head of a chimpanzee on the body of a man. Half of that pair is based on a mid-nineteenth century laissez-faire abstraction about employment expanding as long as there is unmet demand. The other half is based on a mid-twentieth century empirical observation regarding the high proportion of fixed labour costs. The first half assumes free mobility for both labour and capital who -- needless to say -- are presumed to have perfect information about labour markets. The second accepts a 1965 statistical snapshot of the U.S.A as an eternal representation of economic "reality". Those two half-arguments are rhetorically stitched together by the misleading claim that proponents of work sharing assume the amount of work available is fixed. Proponents of work sharing *don't* assume that the amount of work available is fixed. We argue that when many people are unemployed and many others are over worked, policies to redistribute work hours could be effective. It is the Economist who insists on reducing the argument to absurdity. But the the Economist's big counter-argument -- its two-piece 'lump of labour fallacy' -- IS patently absurd. The exposition of the fallacy depends on two mutually exclusive propositions -- 1. that labour and capital are freely mobile and 2. that labour costs are significantly fixed. A *fixed* labour cost is self-evidently a constraint on the *mobility* of both labour and capital. Not moving is the opposite of moving. One might easily dismiss such illogic as the confused mutterings of a lone journalist were it not for the fact that the Economist has published no less than seven articles since 1995 trumpeting this 'lump of labour fallacy' rubbish. Not only do they repeat this stuff ad nauseum, they do so with a tone of impatience at having to once again point out such a presumably obvious truth of economics. Well, it's not an obvious truth because it's simply not true -- it's not even coherent. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
