Posts

Showing posts from 2012

Old Lumps Never Die... They Just Fly!

Image
Sometimes I stumble across recitations of the lump of labor catechism that I missed at the time. Here's one that's untimeliness has become timely by the juxtaposition of the 2003 Bloomberg column to an advertisement for a current Bloomberg feature: "Lump-of-Labour Fallacy Gussied Up for a New Era" and "Flying Robots"! Ms. Baum bills herself on twitter as "a Bloomberg View columnist, writing about the macro-economy and the intersection beween [sic] politics and economics. My specialty is exposing economic nonsense." The unintentional ambiguity of the last claim is refreshingly frank. So I wrote to Madam Baum (and her editor): Dear Caroline Baum, Your twitter profile says that you write about the "intersection beween politics and economics." Obviously that should read "between." But that's not why I'm writing. Your profile also states that your "specialty is exposing economic nonsense." Way back in 2003 you...

Introducing the Lump-of-Labor Robot Economists:

Image
This crude stop-action video is meant as a place holder until the full dramatic videos can be produced starring Big Shot economists who parrot the lump of labor fallacy claim. See also the earlier Kruglump narration:

FAIL

Those who make the fallacy claim fail to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work.

Immanent Critique

Those who make the fallacy claim neglect to offer specific evidence of the supposed belief in a fixed amount of work.

Faith-based Fallacy Mongering

Image
A lump-of-labour fallacy claimant responds to my criticism of the lack of evidence for the assumption that current hours are optimal: "Of course I don't provide evidence. It is self-evident. Suppose I work for you for 30 hours per week. Suppose you then find out that it would be much more effective to hire 2 people working for 15 hours each instead. Say, because marginal productivity declines very fast. Or because of complementary skills. Or whatever. Either way, what would you do? -You would split the job, of course. Why on earth would you need a government bureaucrat telling you to do you what is good for you? How likely is it that you don't know how to achieve a productivity gain in your business, while some distant bureaucrat does know?" Evidence? Of course I don't provide evidence. Why on earth would we need evidence? It is self-evident. I don't have to show you any stinkin' evidence! Sir Sydney J. Chapman: "The reforming employer would run ...